sample of research proposal in computer science

Welcome to the on-line version of the UNC dissertation proposal collection. The purpose of this collection is to provide examples of proposals for those of you who are thinking of writing a proposal of your own. I hope that this on-line collection proves to be more difficult to misplace than the physical collection that periodically disappears. If you are preparing to write a proposal you should make a point of reading the excellent document The Path to the Ph.D., written by James Coggins. It includes advice about selecting a topic, preparing a proposal, taking your oral exam and finishing your dissertation. It also includes accounts by many people about the process that each of them went through to find a thesis topic. Adding to the Collection This collection of proposals becomes more useful with each new proposal that is added. If you have an accepted proposal, please help by including it in this collection. You may notice that the bulk of the proposals currently in this collection are in the area of computer graphics. This is an artifact of me knowing more computer graphics folks to pester for their proposals. Add your non-graphics proposal to the collection and help remedy this imbalance! There are only two requirements for a UNC proposal to be added to this collection. The first requirement is that your proposal must be completely approved by your committee. If we adhere to this, then each proposal in the collection serves as an example of a document that five faculty members have signed off on. The second requirement is that you supply, as best you can, exactly the document that your committee approved. While reading over my own proposal I winced at a few of the things that I had written. I resisted the temptation to change the document, however, because this collection should truely reflect what an accepted thesis proposal looks like. Note that there is no requirement that the author has finished his/her Ph.D. Several of the proposals in the collection were written by people who, as of this writing, are still working on their dissertation. This is fine! I encourage people to submit their proposals in any form they wish. Perhaps the most useful forms at the present are Postscript and HTML, but this may not always be so. Greg Coombe has generously provided LaTeX thesis style files , which, he says, conform to the 2004-2005 stlye requirements.

Many thanks to everyone who contributed to this collection!

Greg Coombe, "Incremental Construction of Surface Light Fields" in PDF . Karl Hillesland, "Image-Based Modelling Using Nonlinear Function Fitting on a Stream Architecture" in PDF . Martin Isenburg, "Compressing, Streaming, and Processing of Large Polygon Meshes" in PDF . Ajith Mascarenhas, "A Topological Framework for Visualizing Time-varying Volumetric Datasets" in PDF . Josh Steinhurst, "Practical Photon Mapping in Hardware" in PDF . Ronald Azuma, "Predictive Tracking for Head-Mounted Displays," in Postscript Mike Bajura, "Virtual Reality Meets Computer Vision," in Postscript David Ellsworth, "Polygon Rendering for Interactive Scientific Visualization on Multicomputers," in Postscript Richard Holloway, "A Systems-Engineering Study of the Registration Errors in a Virtual-Environment System for Cranio-Facial Surgery Planning," in Postscript Victoria Interrante, "Uses of Shading Techniques, Artistic Devices and Interaction to Improve the Visual Understanding of Multiple Interpenetrating Volume Data Sets," in Postscript Mark Mine, "Modeling From Within: A Proposal for the Investigation of Modeling Within the Immersive Environment" in Postscript Steve Molnar, "High-Speed Rendering using Scan-Line Image Composition," in Postscript Carl Mueller, " High-Performance Rendering via the Sort-First Architecture ," in Postscript Ulrich Neumann, "Direct Volume Rendering on Multicomputers," in Postscript Marc Olano, "Programmability in an Interactive Graphics Pipeline," in Postscript Krish Ponamgi, "Collision Detection for Interactive Environments and Simulations," in Postscript Russell Taylor, "Nanomanipulator Proposal," in Postscript Greg Turk, " Generating Textures on Arbitrary Surfaces ," in HTML and Postscript Terry Yoo, " Statistical Control of Nonlinear Diffusion ," in Postscript

Thesis Proposal

In the thesis proposal, the PhD or DES student lays out an intended course of research for the dissertation.  By accepting the thesis proposal, the student’s dissertation proposal committee agrees that the proposal is practicable and acceptable, that its plan and prospectus are satisfactory, and that the candidate is competent in the knowledge and techniques required, and formally recommends that the candidate proceed according to the prospectus and under the supervision of the dissertation committee. It is part of the training of the student’s research apprenticeship that the form of this proposal must be as concise as those proposals required by major funding agencies.

The student proposes to a committee consisting of the student’s advisor and two other researchers who meet requirements for dissertation committee membership.  The advisor should solicit the prospective committee members, not the student. In cases where the research and departmental advisors are different , both must serve on the committee.

The student prepares a proposal document that consists of a core, plus any optional appendices. The core is limited to 30 pages (e.g., 12 point font, single spacing, 1 inch margins all around), and should contain sections describing 1) the problem and its background, 2) the innovative claims of the proposed work and its relation to existing work, 3) a description of at least one initial result that is mature enough to be able to be written up for submission to a conference, and 4) a plan for completion of the research. The committee commits to read and respond to the core, but reserves the right to refuse a document whose core exceeds the page limit. The student cannot assume that the committee will read or respond to any additional appendices.

The complete doctoral thesis proposal document must be disseminated to the entire dissertation committee no later than two weeks (14 days) prior to the proposal presentation. The PhD Program Administrator must be informed of the scheduling of the proposal presentation no later than two weeks (14 days) prior to the presentation. Emergency exceptions to either of these deadlines can be granted by the Director of Graduate Studies or the Department Chair on appeal by the advisor and agreement of the committee.

A latex thesis proposal template is available here .

PRESENTATION AND FEEDBACK

The student presents the proposal in a prepared talk of 45 minutes to the committee, and responds to any questions and feedback by the committee.

The student’s advisor, upon approval of the full faculty, establishes the target semester by which the thesis proposal must be successfully completed. The target semester must be no later than the eighth semester, and the student must be informed of the target semester no later than the sixth semester.

The candidacy   exam  must be successfully completed  before  the  proposal can be attempted.  The proposal must be completed prior to submitting the application for defense. [Instituted by full faculty vote September 16, 2015.]

Passing or failing is determined by consensus of the committee, who then sign the dissertation proposal form (sent to advisors by phd-advising@cs.  Failure to pass the thesis proposal by the end of the target semester or the eighth semester, whichever comes first, is deemed unsatisfactory progress: the PhD or DES student is normally placed on probation and can be immediately dismissed from the program. However, on appeal of the student’s advisor, one semester’s grace can be granted by the full faculty.

Last updated on October 16, 2023.

Find open faculty positions here .

Computer Science at Columbia University

Upcoming events, coffee and questions.

Wednesday 2:00 pm

Last day of classes

Monday 10:00 am

Class Day Graduate Ceremony

Sunday 3:00 pm

South Lawn, Morningside Campus

Class Day Undergraduate Ceremony

Monday 11:45 am

In the News

Press mentions, dean boyce's statement on amicus brief filed by president bollinger.

President Bollinger announced that Columbia University along with many other academic institutions (sixteen, including all Ivy League universities) filed an amicus brief in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York challenging the Executive Order regarding immigrants from seven designated countries and refugees. Among other things, the brief asserts that “safety and security concerns can be addressed in a manner that is consistent with the values America has always stood for, including the free flow of ideas and people across borders and the welcoming of immigrants to our universities.”

This recent action provides a moment for us to collectively reflect on our community within Columbia Engineering and the importance of our commitment to maintaining an open and welcoming community for all students, faculty, researchers and administrative staff. As a School of Engineering and Applied Science, we are fortunate to attract students and faculty from diverse backgrounds, from across the country, and from around the world. It is a great benefit to be able to gather engineers and scientists of so many different perspectives and talents – all with a commitment to learning, a focus on pushing the frontiers of knowledge and discovery, and with a passion for translating our work to impact humanity.

I am proud of our community, and wish to take this opportunity to reinforce our collective commitment to maintaining an open and collegial environment. We are fortunate to have the privilege to learn from one another, and to study, work, and live together in such a dynamic and vibrant place as Columbia.

Mary C. Boyce Dean of Engineering Morris A. and Alma Schapiro Professor

{{title}} {{fullname}}

Courses This Semester

• {{title}} ({{dept}} {{prefix}}{{course_num}}-{{section}})

PhD Assistance

Beginners guide to write a research proposal for a phd in computer science.

• Writing a PhD Doctoral Dissertation Proposal is the critical step in computer science research. Poor writing can turn down (decrees the scope of your research work) and even decrease the chance of getting a PhD.
• The L iterature must contain the outline of the previous work and research work previously carried out in your research area (topic related to your proposed project work).
• Assume it as a research tool that will help you clarify your idea and make conducting your research easier.

• Introduction

The proposal must contain the outline of your general area of study within which your research falls. You have to denote the current state of your knowledge and any current debates related to your research topic; it has to demonstrate your proposed research’s originality.Three major questions that needed to be considered before starting with Research Proposal Writing

A research proposal must sate your idea or research question and expected result with simplicity, clarity and definition.

Why- It must also create a case for why your question is essential and how far your contribution will impact your discipline.

What it must not do is answer the question – that’s what your research will do.

Importance of the Research Proposal

Research proposals are important because they formally outline your intended or in-depth research. Which means you need to offer details on how you will proceed with your research, including:

• your methodology and procedure
• timeline and feasibility
• All other thoughts needed to improve your research, such as resources.

Assume it as a research tool that will help you clarify your idea and make conducting your research easier. High-Quality Research Proposal Writing Service help you in getting high-quality research work.

Planning to write your PhD proposal

Consider the structure of your research proposal writing process before you start writing.

Plan the writing flow of your proposal and stick to the plan. Do not deviate from the plan of your proposal.

The strategy to write a PhD proposal is as follows:

• Work out any pictorial representation that you would like to include
• Describe your methodology
• Express the data to be used
• Propose possible outcomes of studying data
• Bibliography
• Writing your PhD proposal

After completing your PhD proposal plan, the next step is to proceed with your actual writing plan. Consult with your trainer or mentor to ensure you are going in the right direction and consult with experts to get a NO.1 Research Proposal Writing Services . The PhD proposals adopt a more proper style than other writing types — even other theoretical papers you have already written. It is always necessary to clear this up before you start writing.

The Basic Structure OF a Research Proposal

Writing a research proposal is the critical step in computer science research. Poor writing can turn down (decrees the scope of your research work) and even decrease the chance of getting a PhD.

The following are the fundamental procedure that needs to be followed for Writing a Research Proposal of PhD in Computer Science

Proposal Introduction:

The introduction section must contain an overview of your proposed research projects, its key concepts and problems statement or issues. You must able to show the reader or reviewer where your research fits. In general, you have to justify your research work within the field of computer science and then narrow it down to a particular research area (choosing a particular domain) and concern it will focus. Make it clear what exact problem or query your research will address and explain it in a brief research thesis statement.

Literature Review:

The literature must contain the outline of the previous work and research work previously carried out in your research area (topic related to your proposed project work). The main reason for writing a research proposal is to show the reader that you are familiar with what has already been done in the area. And to identify there is a gap in the particular research area that your work will fill.

Research Methods:

It must offer a clear and elaborate detail about the research work you will carry out. Must contain a detailed description of the equipment, techniques, or any other methodology you plan to include in your project should be covered here. Your projected schedule and budget should be added.

Bibliography:

Write a bibliography that cites all resources that were used in your literature review area. Many citing references found but computer science-related research project prepares APA (American Psychological Association) style of citing references format. It should be added at the beginning of your research proposal.  And it is a good way to familiarize others with your research topic, which can help them see the work you have included (relevant literature work). If you are having difficulties writing your research proposal in computer science, our  PhD Thesis Writing Service will Help .

Proofreading for Awesome Results

It is essential to proofread the dissertation work before the final submission to check for grammatical errors and correctness. Plagiarism correction helps in justifying the research work and help to prove the originality of the work.

The best ways of conducting a proofreading PhD proposal are as follows:

• Read the proposal carefully, again and again to yourself to recognize unnatural wording
• Proofreading, again and again, helps in improving the quality of the project work; always take time in-between writing and proofreading, which allow your brain to take rest.
• It is always better to have someone who can help with proofreading, to get a perfect work.

Exactness is never more significant than in a PhD proposal. Make sure intensive proofing is a part of your research proposal plan.

What’s the difference between a Dissertation Proposal and a Research Proposal

Writing a Research Proposal For PhD may be a difficult task. But writing a PhD D octoral D issertation will be much more challenge than that. Any research proposal’s objective is to present and justify the research study’s necessity and identified research problem found in a particular research area. Apart from this, you have to present a way to demonstrate the study from a practical perspective. Always make sure that you are following a slandered and specific guideline for each work.   It is better to learn about the phases of writing a dissertation to better your project work. A dissertation proposal must also contain points that you plan to cover and observe during your research. The main difference found between a research proposal and a dissertation is that the dissertation will not entirely be based on research. Instead, it offers new opinions, ideas, theories, and practices.

If you are ready to write a PhD proposal, no one needs to tell how important it is, that much, you already know. Our tips and Best PhD Proposal Writing Service will help you make a clear and high quality, PhD Doctoral Dissertation Proposal and earn your meritorious doctoral degree.

• Dey, S. (2014). A beginner’s guide to computer science research.  XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students ,  20 (4), 14-14.
• Kumar, R. (2018).  Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners . Sage.
• Best PhD Proposal Writing Service
• Dissertation Research Proposal
• High-Quality Research Proposal Writing Service
• NO.1 Research Proposal Writing Services
• PhD dissertation research proposal
• PhD Doctoral Dissertation Proposal
• PhD Research Proposal Assistance
• Plagiarism correction.
• Quality Research Proposal Writing Service
• Research Proposal For Phd

Quick Contact

• Adversial Attacks
• Artificial Intelligence
• Artificial Intelligence (AI) and ML ( Machine Learning )
• Big Data Analysis
• Business and Management
• Categories of Research methodology – PhDAssistance
• Category of Research Proposal Services
• coding & algorithm
• Computer Data Science
• Category of Machine Learning – PhDassistance
• Computer Science/Research writing/Manuscript
• Course Work Service
• Data Analytics
• Data Processing
• Deep Networks
• Dissertation Statistics
• economics dissertation
• Editing Services
• Electrical Engineering Category
• Engineering & Technology
• finance dissertation writing
• Gap Identification
• Healthcare Dissertation Writing
• Intrusion-detection-system
• journals publishing
• Life Science Dissertation writing services
• literature review service
• Machine Learning
• medical thesis writing
• Peer review
• PhD Computer Programming
• PhD Dissertation
• Phd Journal Manuscript
• Annotated Bibliography
• PhD Publication Support
• Phd thesis writing services
• Phd Topic Selection
• Categories of PhdAssistance Dissertation
• Power Safety
• problem identification
• Quantitative Analysis
• quantitative research
• Recent Trends
• Referencing and Formatting
• Research Gap
• research journals
• Research Methodology
• research paper
• Research Proposal Service
• secondary Data collection
• Statistical Consulting Services
• Uncategorized

PhD Assistance | Blog

Email forwarding for @cs.stanford.edu is changing. Updates and details here . Looking for your W-2 form?  Read Here . CS Commencement Ceremony June 16, 2024.  Learn More .

PhD | Thesis Proposal

Main navigation.

The student must present an oral thesis proposal and submit the form to their full reading committee by Spring quarter of their fourth year. The thesis proposal form  must be filled out, signed, and approved by all committee members. Then, submitted to the CS PhD Student Services ( [email protected] ). 

The thesis proposal allows students to obtain formative feedback from their reading committee that'll guide them into a successful and high-quality dissertation. The thesis proposal (a private session only with the student's advisor/co-advisor and reading committee members) should allow time for discussion with the reading committee about the direction of the thesis research. The suggested format should include:

• A description of the research problem and its significance;
• A description of previous work in the area and the "state of the art" prior to the student's work; 
• A description of preliminary work the student has done on the problem, and any research results of that work; 
• An outline of remaining work to be done and a timeline for accomplishing it.

Research Proposal Example/Sample

Detailed Walkthrough + Free Proposal Template

If you’re getting started crafting your research proposal and are looking for a few examples of research proposals , you’ve come to the right place.

In this video, we walk you through two successful (approved) research proposals , one for a Master’s-level project, and one for a PhD-level dissertation. We also start off by unpacking our free research proposal template and discussing the four core sections of a research proposal, so that you have a clear understanding of the basics before diving into the actual proposals.

• Research proposal example/sample – Master’s-level (PDF/Word)
• Research proposal example/sample – PhD-level (PDF/Word)
• Proposal template (Fully editable) 

If you’re working on a research proposal for a dissertation or thesis, you may also find the following useful:

• Research Proposal Bootcamp : Learn how to write a research proposal as efficiently and effectively as possible
• 1:1 Proposal Coaching : Get hands-on help with your research proposal

FAQ: Research Proposal Example

Research proposal example: frequently asked questions, are the sample proposals real.

Yes. The proposals are real and were approved by the respective universities.

Can I copy one of these proposals for my own research?

As we discuss in the video, every research proposal will be slightly different, depending on the university’s unique requirements, as well as the nature of the research itself. Therefore, you’ll need to tailor your research proposal to suit your specific context.

You can learn more about the basics of writing a research proposal here .

How do I get the research proposal template?

You can access our free proposal template here .

Is the proposal template really free?

Yes. There is no cost for the proposal template and you are free to use it as a foundation for your research proposal.

Where can I learn more about proposal writing?

For self-directed learners, our Research Proposal Bootcamp is a great starting point.

For students that want hands-on guidance, our private coaching service is recommended.

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling Udemy Course, Research Proposal Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

You Might Also Like:

I am at the stage of writing my thesis proposal for a PhD in Management at Altantic International University. I checked on the coaching services, but it indicates that it’s not available in my area. I am in South Sudan. My proposed topic is: “Leadership Behavior in Local Government Governance Ecosystem and Service Delivery Effectiveness in Post Conflict Districts of Northern Uganda”. I will appreciate your guidance and support

GRADCOCH is very grateful motivated and helpful for all students etc. it is very accorporated and provide easy access way strongly agree from GRADCOCH.

Proposal research departemet management

I am at the stage of writing my thesis proposal for a masters in Analysis of w heat commercialisation by small holders householdrs at Hawassa International University. I will appreciate your guidance and support

please provide a attractive proposal about foreign universities .It would be your highness.

comparative constitutional law

Kindly guide me through writing a good proposal on the thesis topic; Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Financial Inclusion in Nigeria. Thank you

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

• Who’s Teaching What
• Subject Updates
• MEng program
• Opportunities
• Minor in Computer Science
• Resources for Current Students
• Program objectives and accreditation
• Graduate program requirements
• Admission process
• Degree programs
• Graduate research
• EECS Graduate Funding
• Resources for current students
• Student profiles
• Instructors
• DEI data and documents
• Recruitment and outreach
• Community and resources
• Get involved / self-education
• Rising Stars in EECS
• Graduate Application Assistance Program (GAAP)
• MIT Summer Research Program (MSRP)
• Sloan-MIT University Center for Exemplary Mentoring (UCEM)
• Electrical Engineering
• Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence + Decision-making
• AI and Society
• AI for Healthcare and Life Sciences
• Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning
• Biological and Medical Devices and Systems
• Communications Systems
• Computational Biology
• Computational Fabrication and Manufacturing
• Computer Architecture
• Educational Technology
• Electronic, Magnetic, Optical and Quantum Materials and Devices
• Graphics and Vision
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Information Science and Systems
• Integrated Circuits and Systems
• Nanoscale Materials, Devices, and Systems
• Natural Language and Speech Processing
• Optics + Photonics
• Optimization and Game Theory
• Programming Languages and Software Engineering
• Quantum Computing, Communication, and Sensing
• Security and Cryptography
• Signal Processing
• Systems and Networking
• Systems Theory, Control, and Autonomy
• Theory of Computation
• Departmental History
• Departmental Organization
• Visiting Committee
• Undergraduate programs
• Thesis Proposal
• Past Terms' Subject Updates and WTW
• Subject numbering
• FAQ about Fall 2024 Changes
• 2022 Curriculum Transition
• 6-1: Electrical Science and Engineering
• 6-2: Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
• 6-3: Computer Science and Engineering
• 6-4: Artificial Intelligence and Decision Making
• 6-7: Computer Science and Molecular Biology
• 6-9: Computation and Cognition
• 11-6: Urban Science and Planning with Computer Science
• 6-14: Computer Science, Economics, and Data Science
• Requirements
• Application, Acceptance, and Deferral
• MEng Thesis
• UROP and SuperUROP
• Study Abroad
• USAGE Members, 2023-24
• 6-A Industrial Program
• Degree Audits and Departmental Petitions
• Space on Campus
• Resources for International Students
• Resources for Incoming Double Majors
• Resources for Advisors
• Graduate Admissions FAQs
• Graduate Admissions Information Letter
• What faculty members are looking for in a grad school application essay.
• Conditions of Appointment as a Teaching Assistant or Fellow
• RA Appointments
• Fellowship Appointments
• Materials and Forms for Graduate Students
• Subject Updates Spring 2024
• Subject Updates Fall 2023
• Subject Updates Spring 2023
• Subject Updates Fall 2022
• Subject Updates Spring 2022
• Subject Updates Fall 2021

The EECS Department requires that students submit a thesis proposal during their first semester as MEng students, before they have begun substantial work on the thesis. Thesis proposals are brief documents (1500-2500 words) which focus on the ultimate, novel goals of your research project. While it is nearly impossible to extrapolate exactly what could (or will) happen during the course of your research, your proposal serves as a thoughtful approximation of the impact that your project could have as new work in the field, as well as an agreement between you and your thesis research advisor on the scope of your thesis.

Finding a Thesis Research Advisor

MEng thesis research advisors are not required to be EECS faculty members; however, research advisors from other departments, or non-faculty research advisors, must be approved by the EECS Undergraduate Office .

It is the sole responsibility of a student in the MEng program to find a thesis research advisor. There are many ways to go about this process:

• If you are still an undergraduate, look for UROP or SuperUROP opportunities . Many MEng projects stem from UROPs.
• Consider what areas you might be interested in working in, and search relevant lab webpages for people working in those areas. Many EECS MEng students work in RLE, CSAIL, MTL, LIDS, or the Media Lab, but you don’t need to limit your search to these labs. If you find a person whom you think might be a good match, reach out to them with a short email explaining why you’d be interested in MEng opportunities with their group.
• Attend seminars held by research labs that interest you.
• Reach out to instructors you know who teach in the area you’re interested in, as they may be able to point you in a useful direction. Instructors that you’ve gotten to know well (even if they don’t work in your area of interest) as well as your advisor are also useful resources, for the same reasons.
• Keep an open mind to opportunities that are outside of your area. Many students do very interesting MEng projects with faculty from other departments.
• Subscribe to the EECS Opportunities List , which often has advertisements for MEng projects.

Writing Your Proposal

Once you’ve found a thesis research advisor, you should get to work proposing a thesis. Your thesis proposal should be completed while you are in continual conversation with your research advisor. The proposal itself should be divided into five sections:

• The introduction, to introduce the reader to the topic of your thesis.
• Related work, which describes previously-published work that is relevant to your thesis.
• Proposed work, which describes the work you will be doing for your thesis.
• Timeline, which breaks down your proposed work into concrete steps, each with an approximate due date. At a minimum, you should describe what you plan to do each semester of your MEng, but many students give a timeline that is broken down by months, not semesters.
• A bibliography

The EECS Communication Lab provides additional support for thesis proposal writing. You can see more detailed guidelines, as well as examples of previous MEng thesis proposals, here .

Submitting Your Proposal

The thesis proposal, and research advisor approval of the proposal, are typically due on the last day of classes each semester (see here for official deadlines) and there are no formatting requirements for the thesis proposal. When you are ready to submit, you can do so here . If you change your topic or research advisor, you should submit a new proposal.

6-A students must also submit a thesis proposal release letter. These letters can be sent to [email protected] and should follow one of the two templates below.

• For 6-A companies
• For non-6-A companies

Postdoc Best Practices Proposal

UW CSE's original CI Fellows Best Practices proposals are posted below.

Taking Collective Responsibility for the Postdoc Experience at the University of Washington

At the University of Washington’s Department of Computer Science & Engineering (UW CSE), as at other major programs across the nation, we have experienced a dramatic growth in the number of postdocs in recent years. And, as is the case with most of our peers, we have failed to develop processes by which the department as a whole—vs. individual faculty members—assumes a reasonable measure of responsibility for the experiences that these scholars have while they are members of our community and for their success in moving on to the next stage of their careers.

UW CSE faculty involvement in the Computing Innovation Fellows Project—in the conception of the project, serving as a PI, serving on the steering committee, serving as a source of CIFellows, serving as the host of CIFellows, and reflecting upon the unique attributes of the program that made it so successful—has made it clear to us that we can, and must, do a far better job of taking collective responsibility for our postdoctoral scholars.

Three of the five Co-PIs on this proposal are themselves postdocs. The UW CSE postdoc community took responsibility for reflecting on their experiences—good and bad—and working with the faculty to formulate a set of sustainable practices that we believe will result in a significant improvement in the postdoc culture in UW CSE and elsewhere.

We are eager for, and fully committed to, wholehearted participation in a distributed experiment coordinated by CCC that we expect will have tremendous benefit for our field.

1 Introduction

The University of Washington’s Department of Computer Science & Engineering (UW CSE), like many programs nationwide, has experienced a dramatic growth in the number of postdocs. Ten years ago, we had but 2. Today, we have 27. To place this growth in context, over the same period our faculty has increased by 24%, student enrollment by 50%, technical staff by a factor of 2.5, and research expenditures by a factor of 3. Growth in postdocs blows away these otherwise significant increases.

Exponential growth—whether in technologies, companies, or academic programs—almost always catches us unaware, and is thus accompanied by processes that lag by several years, and therefore by several orders of magnitude. This is undeniably the case with (UW CSE) postdocs.

In the case of our Ph.D. students, we pride ourselves on taking collective responsibility for their experiences and success. We have a full-time staff advisor, an annual two-day orientation, an annual welcoming party, weekly receptions (“TGIFs”) with the faculty, monthly lunches with the Chair, an active graduate student organization with specific activities and responsibilities, an annual Review of Progress for all students involving the full faculty, an annual autumn faculty meeting at which all graduating students are discussed (so that all faculty can assist in placing these students), a clear roadmap for progress through the program, a well understood set of expectations for faculty regarding how students are to be mentored and treated, careful consideration of mentoring when faculty members undergo annual reviews, reappointment or promotion, and a habit of trumpeting the successes of our Ph.D. alums.

In the case of our postdocs, little of this exists.

Postdocs are not the same as Ph.D. students, of course—they and their mentors can be expected to have considerably greater independence. However, the gap in our processes is far too great.

This proposal aims both to bring UW CSE’s support for postdocs in line with recently-developed community best practices and to experiment with several new proposed best practices. We will follow up our implementation of these practices by evaluating their effectiveness using surveys, interviews, and quantitative evaluation of postdocs and their collaborators, and report to the community on the results.

This proposal is a collaborative effort between UW CSE’s faculty and postdocs, and was in large part crafted by postdocs themselves. Three of the five Co-PIs are postdocs. Our proposed activities are informed by a series of discussions between postdocs and faculty and a recent survey of the department’s postdocs.

One of the key findings of our survey is that postdocs are generally satisfied with the support they receive from their postdoc mentors, but a significant fraction are not satisfied with the level of support from the department. There is currently no department-level support infrastructure for postdocs (in contrast to junior faculty and graduate students), leaving mentoring largely at the discretion of individual faculty. This proposal includes several steps towards building such an infrastructure. These include appointing a faculty member as a program coordinator to act as a third-party ombudsperson and ensure that each postdoc is receiving adequate support from their mentors, and conducting periodic reviews of postdoc progress.

A second part of our proposal is based on the observation that, in addition to mentoring, postdocs need an environment in which they can develop an independent research program. Towards this end, we plan to experiment with a program under which postdocs can apply for small grants from a pool of department funding, giving them experience with managing and funding their own research. We will also attempt to improve postdocs’ access to undergraduate and graduate research collaborators.

In the final part of our proposal, we present a plan for implementing these practices sustainably—with adjustments as necessary—should the evaluation throughout the grant period show evidence that their continued implementation is merited.

2 Current Practices and Their Effect

To gain an understanding of what needs to change for postdocs within the UW CSE community, we examine the current practices proposed and/or implemented for postdocs in UW CSE and how their effect is perceived by the postdoc community.

We do this in three steps:

1. We summarize previously published best practices for postdocs in Computer Science and other fields. We identify what they cover and to what extent they make sense to the growing postdoc community in UW CSE.

2. We conduct a case study of the postdoctoral position in UW CSE and compare it to the existing ideal.

3. We report on a survey conducted among current UW CSE postdocs to gauge how the currently implemented practices are perceived by the individuals most directly affected.

  2.1 Published Best Practices

Two existing documents outline suggestions for best practices for postdocs in the sciences [3] and, specifically, in computer science [1]. Concern about postdocs in computer science is very recent and is largely a reaction to the large recent growth in postdoc positions in this field [2].

The existing publications lay out a high-level description of the postdoctoral experience, by treating topics such as position and benefits, goals and expectations, performance evaluation, and career development. These are not necessarily specific to the field of computer science. In fact, even the more specific proposal [1] is generic enough to be applicable to any postdoc. We survey each of these to provide an overview of the proposed practices.

2.1.1 Position and Benefits

Current best practices call for the postdoctoral position to be created such that institutional recognition, status, and compensation commensurate with the expected contributions of the postdoc are awarded. Access to health insurance and retirement benefits should be provided, regardless of the mentor’s funding sources.

We believe this call includes that the salary and other benefits should be reasonable to support a family and meet expectations for a minimum salary after five or six years of graduate studies, so that one is not forced to choose other career options for these reasons.

Most proposals call for a limit (of approximately five years) to be set for the total duration of postdoctoral appointments including time served in the same position at any previous institution). The intended benefit is to advance the postdoc’s career early and effectively; a prolonged appointment can hurt the postdoc’s prospects, rather than benefit them.

In addition, the duration of an appointment shall be adequate for the successful achievement of its intended goals. A minimum duration of two to three years is typically adequate. Contracts shall not be unnecessarily limited to a term less than the adequate amount of time. At the same time, the postdoc should be given the opportunity to terminate his or her appointment early, should career advancement necessitate a move.

The department shall invite the participation of postdocs when amending further standards or conditions to the appointment. A postdoc appointment should be a desirable training opportunity, instead of merely a holding place for the next career step, or, worse, cheap labor. It is important to make the postdoc feel that his or her position is valued, and to allow the postdoc’s participation in the terms of his or her own appointment.

A significant fraction of the postdocs at top US universities are international scholars - some are graduates from US universities and some are graduates from universities in other countries. Under a temporary contract, many of the universities have certain restrictions for visa supports which may limit the personal and professional travels of international postdocs. It is important that the university be proactive in supporting the postdoc in professional travel, for example to conferences, which often take place internationally. For example, enable the postdoc to travel internationally by making sure the “travel validation” on J-1 visas, which many international postdocs hold, stays current.

2.1.2 Goals and Expectations of the Postdoc Appointment

As postdoc backgrounds, goals, and experiences are very diverse, existing proposals recommend that both postdocs and their prospective mentors write down a list of goals for the postdoc’s appointment, at or before the beginning of the postdoc. This list should then be discussed between the postdoc and his or her mentor.

This practice strives to create a common ground for the postdoc’s and the mentor’s goals and expectations. It can even serve as a ground upon which the postdoc can decide whether s/he wants to take up the appointment at all. The discussion should be carried out on equal ground and give the postdoc room to modify the mentor’s goals, within reasonable guidance of the mentor.

2.1.3 Periodic Evaluation

Given that the postdoc’s goals have been discussed and fixed at the beginning of the appointment, postdoc and mentor should meet regularly to discuss and assess whether the goals are being worked towards. This discussion might include changing the goals if it is determined that they are obsolete with respect to the postdoc’s current situation.

The department should conduct a recurring survey to gauge the postdoc experience. The survey can be released annually. This practice ensures sustainability of the proposed practices and informs the department of the potential for change of the practices due to a changing environment.

2.1.4 Career Development and Job Placement

Departments should mentor postdocs to help them develop their careers. Such mentoring may include general aid with job applications and interviewing, one-on-one counseling sessions with a career advisor to help the postdoc decide his or her next career move, and organized informal meetings with the mentor to discuss career prospects.

The department should make sure that the postdoc is well prepared for his or her next career step before the end of the postdoc’s appointment, similarly to how the department ensures that its graduate students are prepared.

2.2 The Postdoc Position in UW CSE: A Case Study

The practices published thus far certainly apply to postdocs in UW CSE and we strongly agree with them. But are they put into practice? As a case study, we compare a postdoc experience in UW CSE to the practices presented in the previous section.

Currently, the UW CSE community includes 27 postdocs - a number that has increased dramatically in recent years. Postdocs typically stay between 2 and 3 years, and most contracts are for a duration of 2 years and then extended. However, there is no upper limit to the total duration of a postdoc appointment.

UW CSE provides each postdoc with an appointment as Research Associate. Research Associates receive compensation within the average pay bracket for similar positions in computer science at other US universities (according to Glassdoor.com), and receive health and retirement benefits. The salary is roughly half of a comparable salary in industry for a person with equivalent training and experience.

With the exception of retirement benefits, the status of Research Associate is equivalent to that of a Visiting Scientist, which is a “placeholder” position for visitors to the department of all ranks (professor to visiting graduate intern). As such, postdocs are not involved in departmental decisions that might potentially affect their appointment. In fact, postdocs have no representation in departmental decisions.

Duties of the postdoc position and assessment of their fulfillment are at the discretion of the postdoc and his or her mentor. There is no formal schedule for evaluation of the postdoc’s progress, nor is there a formal requirement for a written description of the postdoc’s duties.

Unlike with faculty or graduate students, there is currently no independent third party responsible for ensuring the adequate mentoring of post-docs, nor any kind of institutional support infrastructure. All mentoring happens between the postdoc and his or her mentor, who is in almost all cases also employing the postdoc. Furthermore, no evaluation of the postdoc experience is conducted by the department. There is little information about postdocs inUWCSE available to the outside world. A webpage exists, listing postdocs in the department, which is updated only sporadically.

Mentoring on job prospects is either at the mentor’s discretion or done via workshops and classes that are consolidated among postdocs and graduate students. No mentoring tailored to postdocs is provided, except at the mentor’s discretion.

UW CSE does not have structured support specifically geared towards postdocs to gain and administer research relevant resources, such as recruiting students to work on their projects. There is a quarterly “research-night,” which gives graduate students, postdocs, and faculty the opportunity to pitch research ideas to undergraduates during a poster reception. Postdocs have to compete with faculty and graduate students in this scenario. This can be seen as an opportunity to learn how to recruit students as future tenure-track faculty. On the other hand, postdocs are members of the UW CSE community for only a short amount of time and as such need access to student talent quickly to facilitate their projects. At the same time, they might not be as effective pitching their ideas, as UW’s culture and what students expect is still new to them.

The experience, background, and expectations of postdocs joining UW CSE are very diverse. Postdocs join from other US universities, from abroad, and (rarely) from UW CSE’s own graduate program. Each postdoc potentially has had a very different graduate school experience and, depending on the academic system in his or her home country, different expectations of a postdoctoral career. To this end, the university provides an International Scholars office to help international postdocs with their needs. So far, however, the department does not automatically offer to pay for the non-trivial costs involved in obtaining and maintaining a visa.

To summarize, while basic provisions, such as salary, benefits, and duration of appointment, are in accordance with current best practices, many other of the proposed practices are missing. Postdocs have no representation in the department, it is not ensured that expectations of the position are clear from the start, and no assessment of their fulfillment is ensured from any side. Finally, career support is delivered only in limited form via advice by the postdoc’s mentor.

We conducted a survey of UW CSE postdocs to determine overall satisfaction with the current practices. The survey as well as the summarized responses are reproduced in Appendix A.

18 out of 27 active postdocs in the department responded to the survey, a 2/3 response rate. The survey itself focuses on the lesser developed parts of the postdoc experience in UW CSE, which fall into three groups:

1. assessment and fulfillment of goals and expectations,

2. career development, and

3. periodic evaluation.

Questions about salary and benefits were not asked.

2.3.1 Goals and Expectations

We began by asking postdocs what they expect to learn throughout their postdoc appointment. The survey shows that most postdocs expect and actively seek out opportunities to gain more research-related experience during their time by publishing research results (83%), writing grants (61%), and mentoring students (72%). Teaching is not as high a priority (39%).

The first three opportunities are typically provided as part of the postdoc appointment in UW CSE. The last one is typically not expected in UW CSE. Given that UW CSE is trying to prepare postdocs to become research faculty, this distribution is healthy.

None of the postdocs aspire to carry out another postdoc. This is understandable, as a postdoc should in all cases be a temporary training position and not a permanent career state. It has to be ensured that this expectation stays this way.

When asked whether their own expectations of the postdoc appointment were clear at the outset, the majority (79%) of postdocs believe this to be the case. Slightly less (70%) agree that their mentor’s expectations were clear and even less (43%) agree that the department’s expectations were clear. One postdoc points out that “it was clear that I would be doing research and little teaching (agreed from both sides). It was less clear what else I would be doing or what the support infrastructure would be.”

While the situation generally seems to be good, perhaps a written, mutual statement of the expected goals of the postdoc - as implemented in the CIFellows Project - would improve the postdoc experience. When asked about this directly, the vast majority (85%) of postdocs agree.

Things clearly have to change at the departmental level to provide a more streamlined postdoc experience, clearly stating the department’s goals. Specifically, when asked about support from the department, 66% of postdocs agree that they receive enough support from the department, but a significant number generally (27%) or strongly (7%) disagree with the level of departmental support. Specific points of complaint are the mechanisms for information dissemination, which seem to preclude postdocs from valuable departmental information. Postdocs also point out that guidance from the department on how to allocate time and what the postdoctoral culture in UW CSE is like would be helpful.

Our survey shows that postdocs in UW CSE either strongly (67%) or generally (27%) agree that their mentor is supporting their goals. One postdoc (6%) strongly disagrees, signaling that perhaps a departmental review of mentorial support is in order to ensure postdocs receive uniform support. Furthermore, when asked whether an independent third party would be valuable, such as an ombudsperson that postdocs can address about their progress and goals, the overwhelming majority (93%) agree.

2.3.2 Career Development

A rather large number of postdocs (40%) are unsatisfied with the provided mentoring on job prospects. Some explicitly point out that they feel feedback on job prospects is missing or insufficient. This clearly has to be improved.

To determine what kind of career counseling should be provided, we asked postdocs about the type of career they aspire to take up after their appointment has ended. 83% of UW CSE postdocs aspire to pursue either a tenure-track faculty or academic researcher position. 11% aspire to an industrial research position, with the remaining 6% (1 postdoc) wanting to take up an industrial engineering position instead. Thus, more counseling for academic faculty careers should be provided.

Gaining independence from their mentor is one of the important steps in a postdoc’s training and perhaps one of the biggest changes from being a graduate student. To what degree this occurs is mentor-dependent in UW CSE. Our survey shows that 73% of postdocs strongly agree that they have enough independence from their mentors. One postdoc strongly disagrees. Mentor independence should be encouraged as part of the postdoc’s career development to ensure it is uniformly provided.

2.3.3 Periodic Evaluation

We asked postdocs directly whether periodic departmental evaluation and some form of follow-up would be desirable and the majority (69%) agree. We conclude that periodic evaluation of the postdoc experience by the department is thus a good idea.

2.3.4 Summary

In summary, while the climate of postdocs in UW CSE seems to be good, there are certainly a number of things that can be improved, such as a better information policy between postdocs and the department, and the availability of an independent third party that postdocs can address.

Furthermore, postdocs point out repeatedly that access to student talent is scarce. 33% say they have insufficient access to resources and many comment that their access to (graduate) student talent is limited.

Some postdocs point out that their mentor is on sabbatical, which they did not know before starting their appointment. Advisors should be more proactive about their near future travel plans when offering to hire a postdoc, who depends upon their mentorship.

3 Proposed Additional Best Practices

The best practices proposed in the existing articles [2, 1, 3] are largely supported by the postdocs and their mentors at UW CSE. Based on our findings via the survey conducted, as well as meetings with postdocs and faculty, we find that this existing set is not complete and at times too broad to capture the needs of postdocs in UW CSE. In this section, we propose three additional best practices that serve to better support postdocs in UW CSE. We relate each proposal to our survey findings and describe their intended benefit to the postdoc.

3.1 Access to Funding

Funding for postdocs varies from position to position. Some postdoc mentors guide their postdocs through seeking and managing research funds; others simply fund postdocs through existing grants and shield them from funding concerns; and some allow postdocs the freedom to fund their own endeavors.

To do their research effectively and demonstrate they can do this independently, postdocs should have access to some of their own funds via their host departments, instead of being fully funded by their mentors.

We propose that it is helpful for postdocs to compete over a pool of independent research funding that is maintained by the department. Obtaining research funding would be subject to roughly the same procedures as is obtaining a government research grant. This practice helps postdocs attain more independence from their mentor and teaches them how to behave in the competitive environment of tenure-track faculty. At the same time, by having only postdocs compete over this money, we shield them from the stark competition with faculty over government research grants.

3.2 Access to Personnel

Perhaps even more important to research success is access to personnel. In discussions and in the responses to our survey, postdocs expressed a desire for greater access to students, both graduate and undergraduate. In particular, there should be no competition between postdocs and mentors over student talent. Instead, the mentor should help the postdoc in finding collaborators early, given the short duration of the postdoc appointment.

A way to foster collaboration with graduate students may be to assign the postdoc to help on an already on-going research project with some of the mentor’s graduate students. If the topic of the project is aligned closely enough with the postdoc’s research ideas, these students might be more likely to collaborate with the postdoc in the future.

Furthermore, faculty should make an effort to advertise the postdoc’s project to graduate students and give the postdoc the opportunity to advertise his or her ideas widely within the department. This has to be done early and effectively, such that students interested in the postdoc’s research can contribute to the project for a fair amount of time. A postdoc’s mentor should advertise a new postdoc joining the group and his or her research ideas before the postdoc has joined.

Undergraduate students can be another useful resource to help increase research productivity. UWCSE has a “research night” each academic term (quarter) at which established researchers in the department can recruit undergraduates to work on their projects. Including postdocs in this kind of event ensures that they have access to the same undergraduate talent pool as faculty.

The benefits of postdoc-undergraduate collaboration run in both directions. Postdocs can be good advisors to undergrads: they have recent experience to offer to undergrads who may be interested in the academic track. Postdocs may also have more time to offer undergrads than a professor could offer.

3.3 Periodic Evaluation

We note that answers to our survey were not uniform. This points to the fact that each postdoc’s experience and needs within our department are currently unique and largely driven by their respective mentors. For example, it is clear that some mentors put more emphasis on developing career-building skills than others. Also, mentors have different approaches to their involvement in the mentoring process.

To provide a more uniform experience to postdocs across the department, the orchestration of their experience should not be isolated to their individual mentor. At the same time, we do realize that each postdoc’s needs vary widely, based on their experience, goals, and research subfield. To this end, we propose that each postdoc’s progress should be discussed and evaluated at the departmental level. This can occur, for example, in a faculty meeting, similarly to how the progress of graduate students is discussed.

The emphasis should be on discussion, rather than evaluation. The intent is to provide the best support to each postdoc individually to help each achieve his or her potential and goals. A document about the goals of the appointment, jointly written by the postdoc and the mentor, can be used as a basis for the discussion of each postdoc’s performance and experience. The intended outcome of this discussion is to inform the mentor whether the experience of their postdoctoral mentees is facilitated enough by the mentor’s application of the proposed best practices. The mentor can choose to adjust his or her mentoring style based on the outcome of the discussion.

4 Plan of Implementation

We in UW CSE commit to implementing and evaluating the best practices proposed in the previous sections. The implementation will directly affect the ever-growing number of postdocs in our department.

We are not going to change departmental practices that are already serving postdocs well. For example, the average duration of the postdoc appointment in UW CSE of two to three years is already matching best practices and is not in danger of becoming prolonged. However, we will remind faculty to be wary of employing postdocs for longer than this amount of time. Also, given our survey results, it is highly unlikely that postdocs will take up another postdoc after their current appointment is finished.

The proposed changes for implementation involve the definition and evaluation of goals of the postdoctoral appointment and postdoctoral involvement in the department’s business, access to research personnel, a research training program, networking, and career counseling. Lastly, we are going to discuss applicability to the greater field and how we plan to collaborate with other awardees.

4.1 Goals and Evaluation

The department will change the involvement of postdocs in the department’s business by appointing a postdoc liaison to the department’s Chair and Executive Committee with full access to information, full input on decisions, and responsibility to communicate openly with the UW CSE postdoc community.

In addition we will appoint one faculty member to act as ombudsperson for postdocs. Postdocs can talk to the ombudsperson about any matter related to their position that they feel they cannot discuss with their mentor. (We have an analogous ombudsperson for commercialization activities: a faculty member whose responsibility is advising faculty and students, and ensuring that student rights are respected.)

We will require faculty to discuss the goals of the postdoc appointment with each new postdoc candidate and write down these goals in a joint document together with the postdoc appointee as part of the appointing process. There will be a yearly review of the goals between the mentor, the postdoc, and the ombudsperson to see whether the goals are worked towards and to review whether the documented goals are still in accordance with the postdoc’s reality.

Also, we will discuss the progress of each postdoc appointee at a faculty meeting, analogous to the annual review of progress of each graduate student. According to our third proposed practice, this discussion serves to inform each mentor about whether their individual application of the best practices and mentoring style is effective to the success of each of their postdoc mentees.

“Graduating” postdocs - those going on the job market - will be discussed among the full faculty at the same time that graduating Ph.D. students are discussed: the full force of the faculty will be devoted to advocating for the appropriate placement of both Ph.D. students and postdocs.

4.2 Access to Research Funding

Using departmental gift funds and Industry Affiliates membership fees, we will establish a pool of research funding for which postdocs can compete. For example, the cost of an undergraduate research assistant (more than 50% of our undergraduates participate in supervised research) is exceedingly modest. This will provide postdocs with a degree of autonomy, and with valuable experience.

4.3 Access to Research Personnel

To broaden each postdoc’s access to research personnel, we are going to encourage faculty to advertise the postdoc’s research projects to graduate and undergraduate students. Also, we are going to include postdocs in prospective graduate student orientations. During these orientations, postdocs can give talks to pitch their projects to prospectives alongside faculty.

We are also going to encourage postdocs to participate in “undergraduate research nights” by advertising the event to them at a departmental level. During these research nights, postdocs can pitch their project in a poster session to undergraduate students.

4.4 Research Training Program

The environment in UW CSE is already such that postdocs are heavily involved in designing research projects, authoring quality technical papers, delivering effective research talks, and pitching research ideas. They learn these skills by participating in the day-to-day activities of the various research groups. This includes practicing their skills within the department and receiving feedback from faculty, other postdocs, and graduate students.

Whether postdocs are involved in writing grant proposals or managing their own independent research, however, is currently dependent upon their mentor. To make postdocs uniformly less dependent upon mentors and to encourage them to write grant proposals, we intend to make small grants available that postdocs can compete for without involving their mentors or other faculty as primary PI/co-PI.

We intend to make workshops available for postdocs that help them acquire the skills needed to craft effective grant proposals. This way the postdocs will be able to acquire skills for successful grant writing which will possibly strengthen their resume for academic job search, as well as have funding to support their independent research by acquiring resources and hiring or supporting undergraduate and graduate students.

4.5 Networking

The departmental culture in UW CSE is already highly collaborative and postdocs are encouraged to mingle with and learn from other postdocs and faculty. We believe that networking within the larger research community is best done at conferences within the field. This requires postdocs to travel. We commit to ensuring enough funds are available for each postdoc to travel to at least 2 conferences a year.

4.6 Career Counseling

The standard duration of a postdoctoral appointment is 2 to 3 years, and applications for a full-time faculty position typically consume on the order of 3 months, which further shortens the effective time to enhance the postdoc’s resume. Therefore, the postdoc would need to utilize the first 1-2 years of the appointment by enhancing his or her publication record, acquiring additional skills like teaching, mentoring and grant writing, and by building a stronger network in his or her research community. We intend to hold a quarterly orientation (to accommodate as many postdocs as possible since they may have different start dates) to advise postdocs about managing their time and provide them with an overview of what awaits them throughout their appointment.

We will encourage postdocs that are already on the job market to meet frequently to compare notes and experiences, and to give each other advice. These meetings should also include others at the institution on the job market in that year, such as graduate students. We believe that it is important to keep these meetings within the circle of those postdocs and graduate students that are actively seeking a job.

In addition, we will invite speakers from outside the department to talk about their career choice and job search procedure. We are going to invite both postdocs and graduate students to these talks.

Faculty should take pride in nurturing postdocs and demonstrate their postdocs’ success to the outside world. We will encourage faculty to post a successful followup job placement of their postdocs on their own webpage. In addition to the mentor’s posting, we will require the department to advertise postdoc job placements on their publication infrastructure, in the same vein as Ph.D. placements are advertised.

4.7 General Applicability to the Community, and Collaboration

The proposed practices can be implemented in any academic institution and should be helpful to all of the field.

In order to discuss our gained information and collaborate with other postdoc-employing departments, we plan to host panels and invite interested departments to discuss the state of postdocs and relevant measurement data. These panels can be held online and should occur at least once a year. UW CSE has experience with hosting such online panels.

To disseminate the results of our evaluation to the community, we plan to author joint publications with other awardees of the grant to publish in a high-impact, overarching publication venue, such as an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Communications of the ACM, or IEEE Computer. We also expect to talk about the state of our effort at the CRA Conference at Snowbird and raise the visibility of our efforts.

We also envision postdocs to give talks to the community about their experiences. These case studies can serve to encourage other departments to adopt the successful best practices out of our experiment.

Finally, we are happy to form consortia with other awardees and coordinate on the formulation, implementation, and evaluation of further best practices.

5 Evaluation

We intend to evaluate the proposed practices along three axes:

1. Qualitative, by conducting surveys of postdocs, mentors, and graduate students. 2. Quantitative, by evaluating postdoc performance metrics, such as number of publications, number of visited conferences, and awarded grants. 3. Investigative, by interviewing postdocs and mentors, as well as allowing outsiders to review the postdoc culture in the department.

We discuss each in this section.

We propose that all awardee PIs collaborate to evaluate results and use these as one source of baseline data for a joint document to be published (see Section 4.7). They should also use them to adjust the proposed best practices in the future.

5.1 Surveys

We intend to conduct semi-annual surveys involving the postdocs and their mentors. These surveys are primarily aimed at evaluating the experience of the postdoc appointment from both sides. Do postdocs feel good about the quality of their experience and hopefully better than before? Do mentors feel good about their experience with postdocs given the new set of practices? How did the availability of resources and personnel change with the implementation of the proposed practices? An exit survey will also be performed at the end of each postdoc appointment, asking postdocs and mentors about their total satisfaction with the postdoc appointment and the implemented practices.

Additionally, for each postdoc-graduate student collaboration, a semi-annual survey will be conducted with graduate students, to gauge how their experience of working with postdocs changes over the course of implementing these best practices and how their perception of postdocs changes in general. Do students see the postdocs they are working with as important contributors to their research group and the research enterprise in general? Do they believe that working with postdocs is a worthwhile undertaking for them? Do they themselves aspire to take up a postdoc appointment after they graduate?

Conducting these surveys semi-annually over the period of the grant of 3 years will yield a total number of 6 data points without becoming too much overhead for the postdocs and department to carry out. We do not believe it makes sense to collect this data more frequently versus the time it takes for the new practices to start being effective.

We intend to follow up with graduated postdocs half a year after the end of their appointments to investigate how helpful they feel their postdoc was for their current career and how they feel at that point in time about their postdoc appointment.

Finally, we intend to survey applicants for postdoc appointments to investigate whether they would choose a postdocin UW CSE over a postdoc at another department and whether this is due to some of the implemented best practices. Similarly, we will investigate whether they prefer a different job, such as a junior faculty position or a job in industry, over a postdoc appointment, and why. This survey will likely be carried out for each applicant, after the applicant has either accepted or declined an offered postdoc appointment.

5.2 Quantitative Evaluation

We intend the department to record the following quantitative data for each postdoc: the number of research publications, grant proposal applications, and awarded grants, conference and workshop visits and talks delivered, number of students mentored, and number of research projects supervised or co-supervised.

This information will be collected yearly by the department and serves to augment the data gathered via surveys, by providing hard data on how well each postdoc is performing within the department over time. This data will be used to evaluate the best practices and give hints on when each practice should best be invoked to support the postdoc during his or her career, by evaluating when postdocs were most productive along each of the skill sets we intend to train them in. For example, training of research skills, such as authoring papers and giving talks, might best be conducted early in the postdoc’s appointment when this still fresh in their heads due to a possible previous graduate school experience, while career advice might best be given towards the end of the postdoctoral appointment when this is most valuable due to an upcoming job search.

5.3 Interviews and Reviews

Finally, we plan to conduct interviews with postdocs and mentors to gain qualitative insight into their experiences and to receive direct feedback on the proposed practices. We intend to do this once a year with every postdoc and mentor. Such interviews may last anywhere between 30 minutes to an hour and should yield answers we can quote in research publications. We intend to investigate directly how satisfied postdocs and mentors are with each implemented practice. Ethnography - assessment - is a critical component, and one with which we have expertise from other projects.

We also intend to involve people outside the department to evaluate the postdoc experience. We believe this to be another opportunity for collaboration among awardees of the grant. Awardee institutions can evaluate each other to investigate how the implementation of the proposed practices differ within each department and how that impacts the postdoc experience.

6 Sustainability after Grant Period

We are committed to ensure sustainability of the - potentially adjusted - best practices after the duration of the grantwith reasonable financial overhead to the department.

We see this as entirely feasible.

The majority of what we have proposed involves putting practices and processes into place. The startup costs dramatically exceed the costs of continuing these practices and processes once they have been established and debugged. Activities become “routine” - part of the general “cost of doing business” rather than an added expense. Faculty duties, for example, become committee responsibilities.

To continue to allow postdocs access to research and career training opportunities, such as grant writing workshops, orientations, and a travel budget to facilitate networking, we propose to charge each postdoc mentor a yearly overhead “tax” of appropriate size (for example, $3000-$4000) for each employed postdoc. This overhead is small compared to overhead charged for supervised graduate students and should thus only minimally impact the day-to-day activities of postdoc mentors.

Funds to support independent postdoctoral research grants - if determined to be a successful practice - may be allocated via academic and professional societies and government institutions, such as the CRA, CCC, NSF, ACM, and IEEE. We intend to work with these societies and institutions to make such funds available. If this is not successful, departmental gift funds and Industry Affiliate funds will continue to be used, filling this gap. If the value is demonstrated, the funds will be available.

Our proposed implementation and evaluation includes measures to ensure that every postdoc receives a high-quality experience, such as the discussion of each postdoc’s performance in a faculty meeting and a thorough evaluation via surveys, interviews, and quantitative evaluation of each postdoc by the department and by outsiders to the department. We intend to continue the discussion of postdoctoral progress in the faculty meeting and to conduct periodic surveys and quantitative evaluation within the department, perhaps at a reduced annual frequency. We also encourage collaborating departments to continue the proposed cross-departmental evaluation, at a reduced frequency. For example, once every several years.

Despite the invested time, these measures will likely involve a travel budget to invite a small review board of collaborators to the department to conduct the cross-departmental evaluation, as well as a minimal staff budget to conduct the survey-based and quantitative evaluation on a yearly basis. Travel budgets for such evaluations are typically available in departments and should thus minimally impact any department’s business. Also, such cross-departmental evaluation might be conducted as part of the departmental assessment process that occurs typically every few years and would thus be consolidated with the budget allocated for this process. We project a staff budget for the creation and evaluation of an annual survey to not weigh heavily either.

We intend measures like the specification and evaluation of goals for the postdoctoral experience not to be a requirement after the grant period. This way the institution will be able to help postdocs with all levels of experience and maturity, maximizing benefits for postdocs as well as their mentors, and minimizing time and effort spent in official formalities. In any case, their implementation requires solely a time commitment of the involved faculty.

The duties of the postdoc ombudsperson is a natural faculty committee responsibility, analogous to chairing our graduate student review of progress committee, or our commercialization oversight committee; establishing the “routine” will be a significant undertaking, but sustaining it should not be.

7 Conclusion

Our field is experiencing an explosive growth in the number of postdocs. We find ourselves at a crossroad. We can choose to follow the path of fields such as the biomedical sciences, in which many individuals move from postdoc appointment to postdoc appointment in a holding pattern that seems designed to serve the interests of senior investigators far more than the career development needs of the postdoc. Or we can choose to blaze a new trail, in a limited-duration postdoctoral experience that is oriented towards serving the interests and needs of the postdoc.

Make no mistake - this is a choice. Right now, UW CSE, like most other Computer Science programs, is thoughtlessly choosing the former course.

The Computing Innovation Fellows Project has shown that the other path is feasible, and is beneficial to all parties. The current award process will enable a set of programs - hopefully including UW CSE - to expand on the CIFellows experiment, testing and institutionalizing best practices in postdoc mentoring that make Computer Science a model for other disciplines.

The time to act is now. We doubt that UW CSE is far behind most other programs in our postdoc practices, but the survey that we have presented identified a number of significant shortfalls, such as a lack of a clear definition of goals for the appointment, a lack of access to resources and personnel, a lack of external evaluation and intervention, and a lack of independence of postdocs from their mentors.

To improve the situation, we have crafted this proposal. Within it, we have identified the most important existing best practices. These include:

1. a clear definition of the position, including adequate salary and benefits, as well as a minimum and maximum time limit of the appointment. 2. Written mutual expectations and goals of the postdoctoral appointment. 3. A periodic assessment of whether the goals are being worked towards, both between postdoc and mentor, as well as by an independent third party. 4. A comprehensive training program for the postdoc’s career development.

We have also proposed a set of three new best practices that are particularly crafted to serve the needs of postdocs in our field:

1. Access to independent funding for each postdoc to ensure more research independence from his or her mentor. 2. Independent access to research personnel, such as graduate and undergraduate student talent, to aid the postdoc in carrying out independent research. 3. Periodic evaluation of each postdoc’s progress to ensure a more uniform experience among all postdocs.

We have proposed an implementation of these best practices within the UW CSE department and laid out a plan to effectively evaluate their merits. We intend to collaborate with other interested departments to jointly discuss andrefine our findings, and to disseminate them to the community via publications in overarching venues, such as theChronicle of Higher Education.

We also presented a plan for the sustained implementation of those practices that are shown to be beneficial, after the conclusion of the grant. The plan is designed to apply to any department, not just to UW’s.

We would like to point out, again, that our proposal has been, in large part, crafted by the postdocs in our department. Three of the five PIs of this proposal are also drawn from these same ranks.

There is a need for change. We intend to act now.

[1] Anita Jones. Computer science postdocs - best practices, 2013. http://cra.org/resources/bp-view/best_practices_memo_computer_science_postdocs_best_practices/.

[2] Anita Jones. The explosive growth of postdocs in computer science. Communications of the ACM, 56(2):37–39, February 2013.

[3] National Academy of Sciences. Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisors, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies. National Academy Press, 2000.

A Questions and summarized responses of a survey conducted in UW CSE

We conducted an anonymous survey with the following questions and received 18 responses from the postdocs in UW CSE. The count of answers for different questions are given in parentheses *.

Q1 . What is your primary goal as a postdoc?

•  Tenure-track faculty (14 out of 18)
•  Academic (non-tenure-track) researcher (1 out of 18)
•  Industrial research (2 out of 18)
•  Non-research industrial work (1 out of 18)
•  Another postdoc (0 out of 18)
•  Other (please specify) (0 out of 18)

Q2. What do you hope to gain from your postdoc?

•  Additional publications (15 out of 18)
•  Grant-writing experience (11 out of 18)
•  Teaching experience (7 out of 18)
•  Mentoring experience (13 out of 18)
•  Other (please specify) (4 out of 18) (knowledge about a new area, visibility in the research community, self-estimation about whether one is eligible to be a professor)

Q3. My access to resources (people, funding) has been sufficient.

•  Strongly agree (3 out of 18)
•  Agree (10 out of 18)
•  Disagree (2 out of 18)
•  Strongly disagree (0 out of 18)
•  N/A (0 out of 18)

Q4. I have enough independence from my postdoc mentor.

•  Strongly agree (11 out of 18)
•  Agree (3 out of 18)
•  Disagree (0 out of 18)
•  Strongly disagree (1 out of 18)

Q5. My postdoc mentor and UW CSE have supported my goals.

Postdoc mentor

• Strongly agree (10 out of 18)
• Agree (4 out of 18)
• Disagree (0 out of 18)
• Strongly disagree (1 out of 18)
• N/A (0 out of 18)
• Strongly agree (6 out of 18)
• Disagree (4 out of 18)

Q6 . Expectations for my postdoc were clear at the outset.

 Postdoc mentor’s expectations were clear

• Strongly disagree (0 out of 18)

 My expectations were clear

• Strongly agree (7 out of 18)
• Disagree (3 out of 18)

 UW CSE’s expectations were clear

• Strongly agree (4 out of 18)
• Agree (2 out of 18)
• Strongly disagree (2 out of 18)
• N/A (3 out of 18)

Q7. I’m getting enough feedback on my job prospects.

•  Strongly agree (4 out of 18)
•  Agree (5 out of 18)
•  Disagree (5 out of 18)

Q8. Would it be helpful...  ... if you and your postdoc mentor were required to mutually formalize expectations at the outset of yourpostdoc?

• Yes (11 out of 18)
• No (2 out of 18)

 ... to informally talk to someone other than your postdoc mentor about your progress and goals?

• Yes (12 out of 18)
• No (1 out of 18)

 ... if there were some departmental followup on your goals and progress, either periodically or at the end of your postdoc?

• Yes (9 out of 18)
• No (4 out of 18)

Q9. What have you learned since starting your postdoc *that you wish you’d known at the beginning*? Feel free to add any other brief free-form comments or suggestions here. (how to involve and hire undergraduate and graduate into research projects of the postdocs without involving mentors, how to better market oneself in the job market, how to utilize the two/three years time the best possible way) * In some questions, multiple answers were allowed. Also any question could be skipped without entering an answer

Addendum for Option A – Postdoc Best Practices National Coordination Role

We propose to have the University of Washington also act as a national coordinator for the Post-doc Best Practices Program. We see the role of the coordinators as two-fold: (1) bring together all the CCC grantees in the program so that they are aware of each other’s activities and reduce duplication of effort by leveraging each other’s work, and (2) disseminate the work of all the grantees through workshops, activities at conferences, web sites, and publications. To accomplish this we propose to add two additional months staff support for our program coordinator. We already have a person ready and willing to take on this role, our professional masters program advisor, who has many years’ experience managing a program for over 120 graduate students. We expect to be ableto begin coordination activities immediately. Among these we will include establishment of metrics and evaluation of results from all program grantees to feed back to the programs.

Coordination

We see our coordination role as one of bringing together grantees in the program to start the process of leveraging each other’s work in an effective manner. We expect to begin with a one-day meeting co-located with the CIFellows program annual meeting in May 2014. We will use that time for each grantee to present their objectives, determine overlaps, identify missing elements, and begin the process of adjusting our activities in concert. We expect this meeting to be annual with presentation of activities and evaluation results since the last meeting. In later meetings (after the first), we expect to also invite other, non-grantee institutions to participate and act as critics and adopters of our collective work. Meeting participants will discuss the presented activities and results and, if merited, how they can be replicated at other sites or how they can be modified to evolve the program over time. We see this as a light-handed facilitation rather than a strict command structure. Some overlap is likely warranted as well when different approaches are proposed and could provide an opportunity for evaluation of different strategies.

Dissemination

Dissemination will be a central part of our coordination role. Many institutions with only a few postdocs can benefit greatly from observing our activities and adopting the practices that are likely to work best in their particular environment. We will work with a select few representatives to understand the best way to package our findings, such as creating manuals or guides for postdoc mentoring under different circumstances. We will also ensure the visibility of the program by proposing workshops or panels co-located with flagship conferences. We will be working with other grantees to prepare a major presentation at the Snowbird conference and an extensive article for Computing Research News or other widely disseminated publications in the community.

Addendum for Option B – Funding to Assist in Developing Postdocs’ Independence

We propose an innovative program to provide post-doctoral researchers at the University of Washington with the opportunity to propose their own research projects and to employ undergraduate research assistants that they will supervise directly. The intent of this program is enable postdocs to pursue a line of investigation independent of their mentor/PI. In addition, we expect it to help them develop skills in preparing a research proposal and in mentoring students.

Available Pool of Undergraduate Research Assistants

The University of Washington Department of Computer Science & Engineering has a long tradition of undergraduates involved in research activities with a large fraction (over 25%) being involved in projects for either research credit or pay. In addition, we have an expanding 5th-year MS program. These students are all involved in research activities as part of their 4th or 5th years. Thus, we have a large supply of undergraduate research assistants available with a strong track record of these students co-authoring and presenting papers at workshops and conferences.

Benefits for the Postdoc

For the postdoc, we believe this type of research program will have several important effects. First, it will allow thepostdoc to develop research directions independent of their mentor’s. Although the proposal will be relatively short (we expect something on the order of 5 pages), it will have all the elements of larger NSF-style proposals including placement of the investigation with respect to related work in the discipline and an evaluation plan. Thus, we expect it to be a good start at proposal writing. Second, by employing an undergraduate research assistant, the postdoc will have the opportunity to mentor a student who is truly their responsibility. Again, this is important preparation for understanding how to recruit, motivate, and engage a student to do their best work and learn the basics of research, presentation, and writing for publication. Finally, this funding opportunity will allow postdocs to start a somewhat riskier project if they choose, since the project may be conducted in parallel with better-established research for the mentor. The ability to turn a “wild” idea into published research is a key differentiator for faculty candidates.

We plan to run the program with an annual deadline in early Spring Quarter so that students can be recruited for the summer and the following academic year. Our ACM chapter has a quarterly “Research Night” when faculty and graduate students can present work for which they are seeking undergraduate assistants. This program will ensure our postdocs also take part in this activity and provide them with one avenue for recruiting. Funding will be on the order of $10K per project. We are seeking funding from CCC to seed the program, with the department providing the bulk of the funding in an ever-increasing proportion leading to 100% department support after 3 years. We anticipate funding approximately 10 projects at the $10K/project rate each year. This will provide enough funding for hourly pay for an undergraduate working up to 20 hours/week for the duration of the year as well as some funding to have the student attend a conference or workshop. The department will assign a committee of three faculty members to review the project proposals. Ideally, the top projects will have the highest degree of independence and new direction from the postdoc’s PI and current project.

  Evaluation Metrics and Methods

We propose to expand our evaluation to more effectively demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed “best practices” as well as their adoption and effect at other programs around the country. We will seek to develop a database of CSE post-docs through voluntary participation. We will begin by contacting department chairs and ask them to propagate our message to their post-docs and have them register in our system. Registered post-docs will be asked to complete initial and annual surveys about their career goals, mentoring, and research. Metrics will include quantitative measures such as the post-docs integration into the research community (conference attendance, presentations both inside and outside their departments, collaborations with students and faculty, publications, etc.) as well as how well their preparation for their eventual careers is progressing given their initially stated goals. In addition, we plan to conduct a series of interviews to provide qualitative data on their post-doc experiences and, in particular, their sense of community in the research enterprise at local and global levels.

To obtain meaningful results, we plan to assign registered post-docs to treatment and control groups based on the extent to which participating institutions have implemented the suggested post-doc interventions. This may be done at the grain-size of universities to avoid having members of both groups represented in a single institution. We will then compare the statistics from the treatment and control groups at strategic points over the course of the grant. Our hypothesis is that post-docs in the treatment group will show increased maturity and sense of community as well as having a larger number of specific citable accomplishments. A further measure will be the degree to which they feel they accomplished their initial goals and/or how their goals evolved.

To ensure proper survey design and statistical analysis we are adding to our proposal a co-PI, Elizabeth Litzler of UW’s Center for Workforce Development.

The Center for Workforce Development (CWD) at the University of Washington has a long history of formative and summative program evaluation and mentoring training, both of which combine to complement the work proposed here. CWD is an external evaluator for many NSF-funded programs, including ADVANCE, LSAMP, and the STEM Talent Expansion Program at UW. Dr. Elizabeth Litzler is the Director for Research at CWD and a sociologist skilled in both quantitative and qualitative analysis who currently conducts the National Center for Women & Information Technology (NCWIT) external evaluation. She will provide evaluation expertise to the project team. Particularly, Dr. Litzler will help the team create a logic model to express the expected outcomes of the project and how the project plans to get there; help in the design of survey and interview instruments to ensure that the appropriate things are being measured; and finally, assist in the analysis of data to assess whether the expected outcomes have been met. The addition of the control group will enable a stronger understanding of impact; analyses will test whether the control and treatment groups differ on key variables. Appropriate bivariate and multivariate analyses will be used for survey analyses. Annual evaluation reports will be written and provided to the project team to summarize the results from the analyses.

Study at Cambridge

About the university, research at cambridge.

• Undergraduate courses
• Events and open days
• Fees and finance
• Postgraduate courses
• How to apply
• Postgraduate events
• Fees and funding
• International students
• Continuing education
• Executive and professional education
• Courses in education
• How the University and Colleges work
• Term dates and calendars
• Visiting the University
• Annual reports
• Equality and diversity
• A global university
• Public engagement
• Give to Cambridge
• For Cambridge students
• For our researchers
• Business and enterprise
• Colleges & departments
• Email & phone search
• Museums & collections
• Current students
• Part II projects
• Department of Computer Science and Technology

Sign in with Raven

• People overview
• Research staff
• PhD students
• Professional services staff
• Affiliated lecturers
• Overview of Professional Services Staff
• Seminars overview
• Weekly timetable
• Wednesday seminars
• Wednesday seminar recordings ➥
• Wheeler lectures
• Computer Laboratory 75th anniversary ➥
• women@CL 10th anniversary ➥
• Job vacancies ➥
• Library resources ➥
• How to get here
• William Gates Building layout
• Contact information
• Department calendar ➥
• Accelerate Programme for Scientific Discovery overview
• Data Trusts Initiative overview
• Pilot Funding FAQs
• Research Funding FAQs
• Cambridge Ring overview
• Ring Events
• Hall of Fame
• Hall of Fame Awards
• Hall of Fame - Nominations
• The Supporters' Club overview
• Industrial Collaboration
• Annual Recruitment Fair overview
• Graduate Opportunities
• Summer internships
• Technical Talks
• Supporter Events and Competitions
• How to join
• Collaborate with Us
• Cambridge Centre for Carbon Credits (4C)
• Equality and Diversity overview
• Athena SWAN
• E&D Committee
• Support and Development
• Targeted funding
• LGBTQ+@CL overview
• Links and resources
• Queer Library
• women@CL overview
• About Us overview
• Friends of women@CL overview
• Twentieth Anniversary of Women@CL
• Tech Events
• Students' experiences
• Contact overview
• Mailing lists
• Scholarships
• Initiatives
• Dignity Policy
• Outreach overview
• Women in Computer Science Programme
• Google DeepMind Research Ready programme overview
• Accommodation and Pay
• Application
• Eligibility
• Raspberry Pi Tutorials ➥
• Wiseman prize
• Research overview
• Application areas
• Research themes
• Algorithms and Complexity
• Computer Architecture overview
• Creating a new Computer Architecture Research Centre
• Graphics, Vision and Imaging Science
• Human-Centred Computing
• Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence
• Mobile Systems, Robotics and Automation
• Natural Language Processing
• Programming Languages, Semantics and Verification
• Systems and Networking
• Research groups overview
• Energy and Environment Group overview
• Declaration
• Publications
• Past seminars
• Learning and Human Intelligence Group overview
• Technical Reports
• Admissions information
• Undergraduate admissions overview
• Open days and events
• Undergraduate course overview overview
• Making your application
• Admissions FAQs
• Super curricular activities
• MPhil in Advanced Computer Science overview
• Applications
• Course structure
• Funding competitions
• Prerequisites
• PhD in Computer Science overview
• Application forms
• Research Proposal
• Funding competitions and grants
• Part-time PhD Degree
• Premium Research Studentship
• Current students overview
• Part IB overview
• Part IB group projects overview
• Important dates
• Design briefs
• Moodle course ➥
• Learning objectives and assessment
• Technical considerations
• After the project
• Part II overview
• Part II projects overview
• Project suggestions
• Project Checker groups
• Project proposal
• Advice on running the project
• Progress report and presentation
• The dissertation
• Supervisor briefing notes
• Project Checker briefing notes
• Past overseer groups ➥
• Part II Supervision sign-up
• Part II Modules
• Part II Supervisions overview
• Continuing to Part III overview
• Continuing to Part III: 2023 guidance
• Part III of the Computer Science Tripos
• Overview overview
• Information for current Masters students overview
• Special topics
• Part III and ACS projects overview
• Submission of project reports
• ACS projects overview
• Guidance for ACS projects
• Part III projects overview
• Guidance for Part III projects
• Preparation
• Registration
• Induction - Masters students
• PhD resources overview
• Deadlines for PhD applications
• Protocol for Graduate Advisers for PhD students
• Guidelines for PhD supervisors
• Induction information overview
• Important Dates
• Who is here to help
• Exemption from University Composition Fees
• Being a research student
• Researcher Development
• Research skills programme
• First Year Report: the PhD Proposal
• Second Year Report: Dissertation Schedule
• Third Year Report: Progress Statement
• Fourth Year: writing up and completion overview
• PhD thesis formatting
• Writing up and word count
• Submitting your dissertation
• Papers and conferences
• Leave to work away, holidays, and intermission
• List of PhD students ➥
• PAT, recycling, and Building Services
• Freshers overview
• Cambridge University Freshers' Events
• Undergraduate teaching information and important dates
• Course material 2022/23 ➥
• Course material 2023/24 ➥
• Exams overview
• Examination dates
• Examination results ➥
• Examiners' reports ➥
• Part III Assessment
• MPhil Assessment
• Past exam papers ➥
• Examinations Guidance 2022-23
• Marking Scheme and Classing Convention
• Guidance on Plagiarism and Academic Misconduct
• Purchase of calculators
• Examinations Data Retention Policy
• Guidance on deadlines and extensions
• Mark Check procedure and Examination Review
• Lecture timetables overview
• Understanding the concise timetable
• Supervisions overview
• Part II supervisions overview ➥
• Part II supervision sign-up ➥
• Supervising in Computer Science
• Supervisor support
• Directors of Studies list
• Academic exchanges
• Advice for visiting students taking Part IB CST
• Summer internship: Optimisation of DNN Accelerators using Bayesian Optimisation
• UROP internships
• Resources for students overview
• Student SSH server
• Online services
• Managed Cluster Service (MCS)
• Microsoft Software for personal use
• Installing Linux
• Part III and MPhil Machines
• Transferable skills
• Course feedback and where to find help overview
• Providing lecture feedback
• Fast feedback hotline
• Staff-Student Consultative Forum
• Breaking the silence ➥
• Student Administration Offices
• Intranet overview
• New starters and visitors
• Forms and templates
• Building information
• Health and safety
• Teaching information
• Research admin
• Continuing to Part III

Early in Michaelmas Term you need to submit a project proposal that describes what you plan to do and how you plan to evaluate it. In order to help with this process, you are assigned two Project Checkers, who, together with your Supervisor and Director of Studies, will provide advice on your ideas. The deadline for project proposals is a little over one week into term, and is a hard deadline .

Choosing a project

You have a great deal of freedom in the selection of a project, and should start narrowing down the possibilities by identifying starting points or ideas that appeal to you. These initial ideas should be refined to a coherent project plan, which is then submitted as the project proposal. The proposal will be discussed informally with your Project Checkers, but is then submitted to the Head of the Department as a formal statement of intent.

The main sources of inspiration are commonly:

• Ideas proposed by candidates.
• Suggestions made by Supervisors or Directors of Studies.
• The project suggestions on the projects web page .
• Past years’ projects. Most recent dissertations are available to read online ,
• Proposals put forward by industry, especially companies who have provided vacation employment for students.

When ideas are first suggested or discussed it is good to keep an open mind about them—a topic that initially seems very interesting may prove unreasonable on further consideration, perhaps because it will be too difficult. Equally, many ideas on topics that are unfamiliar to you will need study before you can appreciate what would be involved in following them. Almost all project suggestions should also be seen as starting points rather than fully worked out proposals.

Notes on project choice

Some project ideas can be discarded very quickly as inappropriate. It is almost always best to abandon a doubtful idea early on rather than to struggle to find a slant that will allow the Project Checkers to accept it. Projects are expected to have a significant Computer Science content; for example, writing an application program or game-playing program, where the main intellectual effort relates to the area supported rather than to the computation, are not suitable. Projects must also be about the right size to fit into the time available. The implications of this will best be judged by looking at past years’ projects and by discussing plans with a Supervisor or Project Checker. They should not allow you to waste much time considering either ideas that would prove too slight or ones that are grossly overambitious.

It is important to pick a project that has an achievable core and room for extension. You should pick a suitably challenging project, where you will likely have to learn new things in order to successfully complete it. In addition, it is expected that you will make use of existing libraries and tools (i.e. don’t reinvent the wheel) unless there is a good reason for producing your own implementation.

Re-use of projects that have been attempted in the past

Projects are intended to give you a chance to display your abilities as a computer scientist. You are not required (or indeed expected) to conduct research or produce radically new results. It is thus perfectly proper to carry out a project that has been attempted before, and it is commonplace to have two students in the same year both basing their projects on the same original idea.

In such cases it is not acceptable to run a simple action replay of a previous piece of work. Fortunately all projects of the required scale provide considerable scope for different approaches; producing a new variation on an existing theme will not be hard. Furthermore the report produced at the end of a previous attempt at a project will often identify areas that led to unexpected difficulties, or opportunities for new developments—both these provide good scope for putting a fresh slant on the ideas involved.

Supervision

In some cases the most critical problem will be finding a suitable project Supervisor, somebody whom you will see regularly to report your progress and obtain guidance about project work throughout the year. This might be one of your main course Supervisors or a separate, specialist project Supervisor, but it should not be assumed that a person suggesting a project will be willing to supervise it. Supervisors have to be appointed by your Director of Studies, but in most cases it will be left up to you to identify somebody willing and able to take on the task. The Project Checkers will be interested only in seeing that someone competent has agreed to supervise the project, and that your Director of Studies is content with that arrangement.

Each project will have a number of critical resources associated with its completion. If even one of these fails to materialise then it will not be possible to proceed with a project based on the idea; your Director of Studies can help you judge what might be a limiting issue.

The project proposal must contain as its last section a Resources Declaration. This must explicitly list the resources needed and give contact details for any person (apart from yourself) responsible for ensuring their availability. In particular, you should name the person responsible for you if your work requires access to the Department research area. The signatures of these people should also be present on the project cover sheet before submission.

What qualifies as a critical resource?

In some cases a project may need to use data or build on algorithms described in a technical report or other document known to exist but not immediately available in Cambridge. In this case, this must be considered critical even if work could start without the report or data.

Using any hardware or software other than that available through a normal student account on UIS equipment (e.g. MCS) is considered non-standard. This includes personal machines, other workstations (e.g. research machines in the Department), FPGA boards, or even Raspberry Pis if they belong to someone else. Likewise, use of software written or owned by someone else that is not freely available as open-source will be considered as non-standard and should be declared.

Additional MCS Resources

It is reasonable to suppose that disk space and machine time will be made available in amounts adequate for all but extreme projects. Those who consider they may need more should provide a reasoned estimate of the resources required in the project proposal in consultation with the Supervisor. Additional file space should be requested through a web form , noting that:

• you should state in your application that you are Part II CST;
• requests for small increases of MCS space will need a very brief justification: please don't send your proposal;
• requests for substantial increases should also be accompanied by a brief supporting email to [email protected] from your Supervisor.

Note that some MATLAB toolkits are not available on the MCS but might be available on Department accounts.

Use of your own computer

If you are using your own computer, please state its specifications and also state your contingency plan in case it should fail (such as using MCS or another personal computer). Please also state your file backup plan and the revision control system you plan to use. If using your own computer please include the following text in your declaration:

I accept full responsibility for this machine and I have made contingency plans to protect myself against hardware and/or software failure.

Department Accounts

Access to Departmental computers can be granted if there is a good reason, e.g. 

• collaboration with a particular research group; 
• use of software not available on the MCS facility. 

If you plan to use a Department account then state this and explain why it is needed in your resources declaration. If relevant, the signature of a sponsoring member of the department (e.g. the owner of the specific resource) is required as an extra signature on the project cover sheet. In addition, your Supervisor should send an email to [email protected] requesting the account with a brief justification. 

Some Department resources and the people who can authorise their use: 

• Requests for resources involving a Department research machine should be authorised by a Lecturer, Reader or Professor who is in charge of managing the equipment. 

Access to the Department can be granted if there is a good reason. If you require access to the secure part of the William Gates Building, you should state who will be responsible for you whilst you are on the premises. They should sign your Project Proposal Coversheet as a Special Resource Sponsor. 

Third-Party Resources

Resources provided by your College, other University departments or industrial collaborators must be declared. The name and contact details (including email address) of the person in charge of the resource must be stated and their signature must be present on the project cover sheet. Resources from third parties can sometimes disappear unexpectedly, so please state why you believe this is not going to happen or else state your contingency plan in case it does.

In the case of projects that rely on support from outside the University it will be necessary to procure a letter from the sponsors that confirms both that their equipment will remain available right up to the end of the academic year and that they understand that the results of work done by students cannot be viewed as secret or proprietary.

You should bear in mind that the Examiners will require electronic submission of your dissertation and code. Therefore, you should not sign anything, such as a non-disclosure agreement, that would prevent you from submitting them.

Working with human participants

If your project involves collection of data via surveys, interviews or online, release of instrumented software, fieldwork, or experiments with human participants, such as usability trials or asking people to evaluate some aspect of your work, then you must seek approval by submitting a human participants request to the departmental Ethics Committee and record that you are going to do this, by ticking the appropriate box on your cover sheet.  This must occur before any of these activities start. Please read the Department's ethics policy .

Your project Supervisor will help you to fill in an online form ( read-only version ) containing two questions:

• A brief description of the study you plan to do;
• The precautions you will take to avoid any risk.

Simple guidance related to the most common types of study is available on the School of Technology Research Guidance site .  You may also find it useful to discuss your plans with the person supervising you for the Part II HCI course.

After submitting the ethics review form, you will receive feedback from the Ethics Committee within a few days. You must not start any study involving human participants without approval from the Ethics Committee.

Planning the project

As part of the project proposal, you should provide a detailed description of the work that needs to be performed, broken down into manageable chunks.  You will need to identify the key components that will go to make up your final product.  Credit is awarded specifically for showing a professional approach using any relevant management or software engineering methods at all stages of project design, development and testing. Plan an order in which you intend to implement the project components, arranging that both the list of tasks and the implementation order provide you with a sequence of points in the project where you can assess progress. Without a set of milestones it is difficult to pace your work so that the project as a whole gets completed on time.

When you have decomposed your entire project into sub-tasks you can try to identify which of these sub-tasks are going to be hard and which easy, and hence estimate the relative amounts of effort involved in each. These estimates, together with the known date when the dissertation must be submitted, should allow you to prepare a rough timetable for the work. The timetable should clearly make allowance for lecture loads, unit-of-assessment coursework, vacations, revision and writing your dissertation. Looking at the details of such a plan can give you insight into the feasibility of the project.  Ideally you should plan to start writing the dissertation at least six weeks before the submission date.

Languages and tools

It will also be necessary to make decisions about operating systems, programming languages, tools and libraries. In many cases there will be nothing to decide, in that the essence of the project forces issues. However, where you do have a choice, then take care to balance out the pros and cons of each option.  It is expected that students will be prepared to learn a new language or operating system if that is a natural consequence of the project they select.

Uncommon languages or ones where the implementation is of unknown reliability are not ruled out, but must be treated with care and (if at all possible) fall-back arrangements must be made in case insuperable problems are encountered.

Risk management

Projects are planned at the start of the year, and consequently it can be hard to predict the results of decisions that are made; thus any project proposal involves a degree of risk. Controlling and managing that risk is one of the skills involved in bringing a project to a successful conclusion. It is clear where to start: you should identify the main problem areas early and either allow extra margins of time for coping with them or plan the project so that there are alternative ways of solving key problems. A good example of this latter approach arises if a complete project requires a solution to a sub-problem X and a good solution to X would involve some complicated coding. Then a fall-back position where the project can be completed using a naive (possibly seriously inefficient, but nevertheless workable) solution to X can guard against the risk of you being unable to complete and debug the complicated code within the time limits.

Planning the write-up

As well as balancing your risks, you should also try to plan your work so that writing it up will be easy and will lead to a dissertation in which you can display breadth as well as depth in your understanding. This often goes hand-in-hand with a project structure which is clearly split into sub-tasks, which is, of course, also what you wanted in order that your management of your work on the project could be effective.

A good dissertation will be built around a varied portfolio of code samples, example output, tables of results and other evidence of the project’s successful completion. Planning this evidence right from the start and adjusting the project specification to make documenting it easier can save you a lot of agony later on.

Preparing the Project Proposal and consulting Project Checkers

You should keep in touch with both your Project Checkers from the briefing session until the final draft of your project proposal, making sure that they know what state your planning is in and that they have had a chance to read and comment on your ideas. Project Checkers will generally be reluctant to turn down a project outright, but if you feel that yours sound particularly luke-warm about some particular idea or aspect of what you propose you would do well to think hard (and discuss the issues with your Supervisor) before proceeding. If Project Checkers declare a project plan to be unacceptable, or suggest that they will only accept subject to certain conditions, rapid rearrangement of plans may be called for.

Dealings with your Project Checkers divide into three phases between the briefing session and submitting your proposal. Most of the communications will be best arranged by Moodle comments in the feedback box and all submissions of work are on Moodle.  Please be sure to take note of the various deadlines .

Phase 1 report: Selecting a topic

You start by preparing a Phase 1 report which, for 23/24 must be submitted on or before the first day of Michaelmas Full Term in October  Please pay careful attention to the points raised in the briefing lectures regarding selection of an appropriate topic. You must certainly choose something that has a defined and achievable success criterion. Note also that the marking scheme explicitly mentions preparation and evaluation, so please select something that will require a corresponding initial research/study phase and a corresponding (preferably systematic) evaluation phase.

You should complete a copy of the “Phase 1 Project Selection Status Report” and upload it to Moodle .

Phase 2: Full proposal draft: Filling out details

The details will include:

• Writing a description, running to a few hundred words.
• Devising a timetable, dividing the project into about 10 work packages each taking about a fortnight of your effort. The first couple of these might be preparatory work and the last three writing your dissertation, with the practical work in the middle. These should be identifiable deliverables and deadlines leading to submission of your dissertation at the beginning of the Easter Term. You will probably write your progress report as part of the fifth work package.
• Determining special resources and checking their availability.
• Securing the services of a suitable Supervisor.

Send all this to your Project Checkers and ask them to check the details. 

Phase 3: Final proposal

In the light of your Project Checkers’ comments, produce a final copy in PDF format. 

You do not secure signatures from your Project Checkers at this stage. Simply submit the proposal. 

Shortly after submission the Project Checkers will check your proposal again and, assuming that the foregoing steps have been followed carefully, all should be well and they will sign the proposal to signify formal acceptance. If the proposal is not acceptable you will be summoned for an interview.

Submission and Content of the Project Proposal

Completed project proposals must be submitted via Moodle by noon on the relevant day.

Format of the proposal

A project proposal is expected to up to 1000 words long. It consists of the following:

• A standard cover sheet
• The body of the proposal (see below).

When emailing drafts of your proposal to Project Checkers, please make sure they contain all of the information required on the final cover sheet.

The body of the proposal should incorporate:

• An introduction and description of the work to be undertaken.
• A statement of the starting point.
• Description of the substance and structure of the project: key concepts, major work items, their relations and relative importance, data structures and algorithms.
• A criterion that can later be used to determine whether the project has been a success.
• Plan of work, specifying a timetable and milestones.
• Resource declaration.

Introduction and description

This text will expand on the title quoted for your project by giving further explanation both of the background to the work you propose to do and of the objectives you expect to achieve. Quite often a project title will do little more than identify a broad area within which you will work: the accompanying description must elaborate on this, giving details of specific goals to be achieved and precise characterisations of the methods that will be used in the process. You should identify the main sub-tasks that make up your complete project and outline the algorithms or techniques to be adopted in completing them. A project description should give criteria that can be used at the end of the year to test whether you have achieved your goals, and should back this up by explaining what form of evidence to this effect you expect to be able to include in your dissertation.

Starting point

A statement of the starting point must be present to ensure that all candidates are judged on the same basis. It should record any significant bodies of code or other material that will form a basis for your project and which exist at project proposal time. Provided a proper declaration is made here, it is in order to build your final project on work you started perhaps even a year earlier, or to create parts of your programs by modifying existing ones written by somebody else. Clearly the larger the input to your project from such sources the more precise and detailed you will have to be in reporting just what baseline you will be starting from. The Examiners will want this section to be such that they can judge all candidates on the basis of that part of work done between project proposal time and the time when dissertations are submitted. The starting point should describe the state of existing software at the point you write your proposal (so work that you may have performed over the summer vacation is counted as preparatory work).

Success criterion

Similarly, a proposal must specify what it means for the project to be a success. It is unacceptable to say “I’ll just keep writing code in this general area and what I deliver is what you get”. It is advisable to choose a reasonably modest, but verifiable, success criterion which you are as certain as possible can be met; this means that your dissertation can claim your project not only satisfies the success criterion but potentially exceeds it. Projects that do not satisfy the success criterion are, as in real life, liable to be seen as failures to some extent.

You will need to describe how your project is split up into two- or three-week chunks of work and milestones, as explained in the planning section .

Resource declaration

You should list resources required, as described in the resources section .

Failure to submit a project proposal on time

Any student who fails to submit a project proposal on time is in breach of a Regulation and will no longer be regarded as a Candidate for Part II of the Computer Science Tripos. The Chairman of Examiners will write to the appropriate Senior Tutor as follows:

Dear Senior Tutor,

XXX has failed to submit a project proposal for Part II of the Computer Science Tripos.  The Head of Department was therefore unable to approve the title by the deadline specified in Regulation 17 for the Computer Science Tripos [Ordinances 2005, p268,amended by Notices (Reporter, 2010-11, pp.94 and 352, http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/so/2011/chapter04-section9.html#heading2-43 )].  XXX is therefore in breach of the regulation and is thus no longer eligible to be a Candidate for Part II of the Computer Science Tripos.  Please could you take appropriate action. I am copying this  letter to the Secretary of the Applications Committee of the Council.

Yours sincerely,

------------------------- Chair of the Examiners Department of Computer Science and Technology William Gates Building JJ Thomson Avenue Cambridge, CB3 0FD

Department of Computer Science and Technology University of Cambridge William Gates Building 15 JJ Thomson Avenue Cambridge CB3 0FD

Information provided by [email protected]

Privacy policy

Social media

© 2024 University of Cambridge

• Contact the University
• Accessibility
• Freedom of information
• Privacy policy and cookies
• Statement on Modern Slavery
• Terms and conditions
• University A-Z
• Undergraduate
• Postgraduate
• Research news
• About research at Cambridge
• Spotlight on...

Tips on Writing a Computer Science Research Proposal

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter

Writing a research proposal in any discipline is a real challenge, but writing a computer science research proposal requires not only theoretical knowledge and the ability to dig in literature, but also practical experience and relevant background. It is only normal if you feel stuck just beginning to compose your research proposal. Along with the guidelines received from your professor and rules from textbooks, you can benefit from these expert tips written by expert academic writers at WriteMyPaperHub.com academic writing company . Use them to get started and keep going.

Clarity the Problem You Address

The basic idea is to find a field in Computer Science which was previously underestimated or not researched enough. Seeing this field, you need to identify a problem that evolves from this field being not studied enough or an issue that will be solved if you do proper research in this field. It is better if you find at least several problems in one area and present them to your professor or supervisor. He or she will choose one with you, and you can start working on it. Though in the research proposal the problem statement is not the first part of the paper, without deciding on it, you should not start writing at all, or it can all be gone in vain. Sometimes, it is not obligatory to confirm your problem statement with your professor or supervisor, but we strongly recommend to do it to share vision as well as responsibility for the chosen research direction. Someone would say that it sounds like manipulation, but we are sure it is just about efficiency.

Write a Detailed Research Plan

Writing a plan is boring, and it takes too much time, so students often tend to skip this step and go directly to writing. Unfortunately, this approach just doesn’t work. You need to write a thorough plan and confirm it with your professor or supervisor. Without a plan, you will get stuck too often, not knowing what to do next. Being stressed about it, you will start procrastinating, feeling that you don’t have enough progress you will get even more stressed. Lots of computer science research proposals were not submitted on time (or at all!) due to this circle of stress and procrastination. To avoid it, you need a detailed plan. In this case, even if something goes wrong, you always know where to pick up. There are two plans — the one you present to your professor, and the one you use for yourself. Think about yourself as about a manager of this computer science research project and write a plan considering risks, limitations, and strengths.

Elaborate On Research Methods

Unlike in many other disciplines, in Computer Science, methods often exist in the form of algorithms, and you need to prove why the chosen algorithms are the best for the particular research and problem in question. Most probably, you will use combined methods — one classical, and one or two specific for Computer Science. Sometimes, this part should also include time for completion and even budget, if you submit your research proposal as an admission document for grant or scholarship. Don’t overestimate your abilities to write fast and don’t underestimate the costs.

Just Know It’s Going to Be Better

Maybe this point sounds silly, but it is essential to know it. You need to remember, that writing a research proposal for the first time is always challenging, for everyone, not only for you. If you get stuck, it doesn’t mean you are not good enough, or you’ve chosen a wrong path, or you should do something else. More of it, writing a research proposal is often harder than doing research and writing a research report itself. When dealing with a proposal, you have to plan everything in advance, decide on a problem, write a problem (thesis) statement, choose literature, confirm every step, decide on methods, etc. Later you will use this preparation work for your more important papers, such as thesis or dissertation. Think in advance about hardships and come up with some small motivating treats for yourself.

When you are done with writing the main parts, start making formatting and checking your text with grammar and spelling checkers and anti-plagiarism software. Students often overestimate the amount of time they need to write research proposals and don’t have enough time in the end to make final check-ups. Make it a rule to check every 2-3 written pages gradually, and you will both improve your writing skills, rest a little, and make sure when the deadline becomes scarily close, almost entire paper is perfectly formatted and checked for mistakes and plagiarism. Following your plan and thinking in advance will lead you through this challenging period of writing a computer science research proposal. Good luck!

About Author

Bob Buskirk

About 10 years of computer experience. Been messing around with electronics since I was 5, got into computers when I was in highschool, been modding them ever since then. Very interested in how things work and their design.

You May Also Like

Pittco iron storm x lan party, install windows 7 from a usb flash drive, ces 2009: shuttle, ces 2009: ibuypower.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Starting the research process
• How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

Published on October 12, 2022 by Shona McCombes and Tegan George. Revised on November 21, 2023.

A research proposal describes what you will investigate, why it’s important, and how you will conduct your research.

The format of a research proposal varies between fields, but most proposals will contain at least these elements:

Introduction

Literature review.

• Research design

Reference list

While the sections may vary, the overall objective is always the same. A research proposal serves as a blueprint and guide for your research plan, helping you get organized and feel confident in the path forward you choose to take.

Table of contents

Research proposal purpose, research proposal examples, research design and methods, contribution to knowledge, research schedule, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research proposals.

Academics often have to write research proposals to get funding for their projects. As a student, you might have to write a research proposal as part of a grad school application , or prior to starting your thesis or dissertation .

In addition to helping you figure out what your research can look like, a proposal can also serve to demonstrate why your project is worth pursuing to a funder, educational institution, or supervisor.

Research proposal length

The length of a research proposal can vary quite a bit. A bachelor’s or master’s thesis proposal can be just a few pages, while proposals for PhD dissertations or research funding are usually much longer and more detailed. Your supervisor can help you determine the best length for your work.

One trick to get started is to think of your proposal’s structure as a shorter version of your thesis or dissertation , only without the results , conclusion and discussion sections.

Download our research proposal template

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Writing a research proposal can be quite challenging, but a good starting point could be to look at some examples. We’ve included a few for you below.

• Example research proposal #1: “A Conceptual Framework for Scheduling Constraint Management”
• Example research proposal #2: “Medical Students as Mediators of Change in Tobacco Use”

Like your dissertation or thesis, the proposal will usually have a title page that includes:

• The proposed title of your project
• Your supervisor’s name
• Your institution and department

The first part of your proposal is the initial pitch for your project. Make sure it succinctly explains what you want to do and why.

Your introduction should:

• Introduce your topic
• Give necessary background and context
• Outline your  problem statement  and research questions

To guide your introduction , include information about:

• Who could have an interest in the topic (e.g., scientists, policymakers)
• How much is already known about the topic
• What is missing from this current knowledge
• What new insights your research will contribute
• Why you believe this research is worth doing

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

As you get started, it’s important to demonstrate that you’re familiar with the most important research on your topic. A strong literature review  shows your reader that your project has a solid foundation in existing knowledge or theory. It also shows that you’re not simply repeating what other people have already done or said, but rather using existing research as a jumping-off point for your own.

In this section, share exactly how your project will contribute to ongoing conversations in the field by:

• Comparing and contrasting the main theories, methods, and debates
• Examining the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches
• Explaining how will you build on, challenge, or synthesize prior scholarship

Following the literature review, restate your main  objectives . This brings the focus back to your own project. Next, your research design or methodology section will describe your overall approach, and the practical steps you will take to answer your research questions.

To finish your proposal on a strong note, explore the potential implications of your research for your field. Emphasize again what you aim to contribute and why it matters.

For example, your results might have implications for:

• Improving best practices
• Informing policymaking decisions
• Strengthening a theory or model
• Challenging popular or scientific beliefs
• Creating a basis for future research

Last but not least, your research proposal must include correct citations for every source you have used, compiled in a reference list . To create citations quickly and easily, you can use our free APA citation generator .

Some institutions or funders require a detailed timeline of the project, asking you to forecast what you will do at each stage and how long it may take. While not always required, be sure to check the requirements of your project.

Here’s an example schedule to help you get started. You can also download a template at the button below.

Download our research schedule template

If you are applying for research funding, chances are you will have to include a detailed budget. This shows your estimates of how much each part of your project will cost.

Make sure to check what type of costs the funding body will agree to cover. For each item, include:

• Cost : exactly how much money do you need?
• Justification : why is this cost necessary to complete the research?
• Source : how did you calculate the amount?

To determine your budget, think about:

• Travel costs : do you need to go somewhere to collect your data? How will you get there, and how much time will you need? What will you do there (e.g., interviews, archival research)?
• Materials : do you need access to any tools or technologies?
• Help : do you need to hire any research assistants for the project? What will they do, and how much will you pay them?

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

Methodology

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

Once you’ve decided on your research objectives , you need to explain them in your paper, at the end of your problem statement .

Keep your research objectives clear and concise, and use appropriate verbs to accurately convey the work that you will carry out for each one.

I will compare …

A research aim is a broad statement indicating the general purpose of your research project. It should appear in your introduction at the end of your problem statement , before your research objectives.

Research objectives are more specific than your research aim. They indicate the specific ways you’ll address the overarching aim.

A PhD, which is short for philosophiae doctor (doctor of philosophy in Latin), is the highest university degree that can be obtained. In a PhD, students spend 3–5 years writing a dissertation , which aims to make a significant, original contribution to current knowledge.

A PhD is intended to prepare students for a career as a researcher, whether that be in academia, the public sector, or the private sector.

A master’s is a 1- or 2-year graduate degree that can prepare you for a variety of careers.

All master’s involve graduate-level coursework. Some are research-intensive and intend to prepare students for further study in a PhD; these usually require their students to write a master’s thesis . Others focus on professional training for a specific career.

Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.

Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.

The best way to remember the difference between a research plan and a research proposal is that they have fundamentally different audiences. A research plan helps you, the researcher, organize your thoughts. On the other hand, a dissertation proposal or research proposal aims to convince others (e.g., a supervisor, a funding body, or a dissertation committee) that your research topic is relevant and worthy of being conducted.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. & George, T. (2023, November 21). How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved April 8, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/research-proposal/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a problem statement | guide & examples, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Peer Recognized

Make a name in academia

Research Proposal Examples for Every Science Field

Looking for research funding can be a daunting task, especially when you are starting out. A great way to improve grant-writing skills is to get inspired by winning research proposal examples.

To assist you in writing a competitive proposal, I have curated a collection of real-life research proposal examples from various scientific disciplines. These examples will allow you to gain inspiration about the way research proposals are structured and written.

Structure of a Research Proposal

A research proposal serves as a road-map for a project, outlining the objectives, methodology, resources, and expected outcomes. The main goal of writing a research proposal is to convince funding agency of the value and feasibility of a research project. But a proposal also helps scientists themselves to clarify their planned approach.

While the exact structure may vary depending on the science field and institutional guidelines, a research proposal typically includes the following sections: Problem, Objectives, Methodology, Resources, Participants, Results&Impact, Dissemination, Timeline, and Budget. I will use this structure for the example research proposals in this article.

Here is a brief description of what each of the nine proposal sections should hold.

A concise and informative title that captures the essence of the research proposal. Sometimes an abstract is required that briefly summarizes the proposed project.

Clearly define the research problem or gap in knowledge that the study aims to address. Present relevant background information and cite existing literature to support the need for further investigation.

State the specific objectives and research questions that the study seeks to answer. These objectives should be clear, measurable, and aligned with the problem statement.

Methodology

Describe the research design, methodology, and techniques that will be employed to collect and analyze data. Justify your chosen approach and discuss its strengths and limitations.

Outline the resources required for the successful execution of the research project, such as equipment, facilities, software, and access to specific datasets or archives.

Participants

Describe the research team’s qualification for implementing the research methodology and their complementary value

Results and Impact

Describe the expected results, outcomes, and potential impact of the research. Discuss how the findings will contribute to the field and address the research gap identified earlier.

Dissemination

Explain how the research results will be disseminated to the academic community and wider audiences. This may include publications, conference presentations, workshops, data sharing or collaborations with industry partners.

Develop a realistic timeline that outlines the major milestones and activities of the research project. Consider potential challenges or delays and incorporate contingency plans.

Provide a detailed budget estimate, including anticipated expenses for research materials, equipment, participant compensation, travel, and other relevant costs. Justify the budget based on the project’s scope and requirements.

Consider that the above-mentioned proposal headings can be called differently depending on the funder’s requirements. However, you can be sure in one proposal’s section or another each of the mentioned sections will be included. Whenever provided, always use the proposal structure as required by the funding agency.

Research Proposal template download

This research proposal template includes the nine headings that we just discussed. For each heading, a key sentence skeleton is provided to help you to kick-start the proposal writing process.

Real-Life Research Proposal Examples

Proposals can vary from field to field so I will provide you with research proposal examples proposals in four main branches of science: social sciences, life sciences, physical sciences, and engineering and technology. For each science field, you will be able to download real-life winning research proposal examples.

To illustrate the principle of writing a scientific proposal while adhering to the nine sections I outlined earlier, for each discipline I will also provide you with a sample hypothetical research proposal. These examples are formulated using the key sentence structure that is included in the download template .

In case the research proposal examples I provide do not hold exactly what you are looking for, use the Open Grants database. It holds approved research proposals from various funding agencies in many countries. When looking for research proposals examples in the database, use the filer to search for specific keywords and organize the results to view proposals that have been funded.

Research Proposals Examples in Social Sciences

Here are real-life research proposal examples of funded projects in social sciences.

Here is an outline of a hypothetical Social Sciences research proposal that is structured using the nine proposal sections we discussed earlier. This proposal example is produced using the key sentence skeleton that you will access in the proposal template .

The Influence of Social Media on Political Participation among Young Adults

Social media platforms have become prominent spaces for political discussions and information sharing. However, the impact of social media on political participation among young adults remains a topic of debate.

With the project, we aim to establish the relationship between social media usage and political engagement among young adults. To achieve this aim, we have three specific objectives:

• Examine the association between social media usage patterns and various forms of political participation, such as voting, attending political rallies, and engaging in political discussions.
• Investigate the role of social media in shaping political attitudes, opinions, and behaviors among young adults.
• Provide evidence-based recommendations for utilizing social media platforms to enhance youth political participation.

During the project, a mixed methods approach, combining quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews will be used to determine the impact of social media use on youth political engagement. In particular, surveys will collect data on social media usage, political participation, and attitudes. Interviews will provide in-depth insights into participants’ experiences and perceptions.

The project will use survey software, transcription tools, and statistical analysis software to statistically evaluate the gathered results. The project will also use project funding for participant compensation.

Principal investigator, Jane Goodrich will lead a multidisciplinary research team comprising social scientists, political scientists, and communication experts with expertise in political science and social media research.

The project will contribute to a better understanding of the influence of social media on political participation among young adults, including:

• inform about the association between social media usage and political participation among youth.
• determine the relationship between social media content and political preferences among youth.
• provide guidelines for enhancing youth engagement in democratic processes through social media use.

We will disseminate the research results within policymakers and NGOs through academic publications in peer-reviewed journals, presentations at relevant conferences, and policy briefs.

The project will start will be completed within two years and for the first two objectives a periodic report will be submitted in months 12 and 18.

The total eligible project costs are 58,800 USD, where 15% covers participant recruitment and compensation, 5% covers survey software licenses, 55% are dedicated for salaries, and 25% are intended for dissemination activities.

Research Proposal Examples in Life Sciences

Here are real-life research project examples in life sciences.

Here is a hypothetical research proposal example in Life Sciences. Just like the previous example, it consists of the nine discussed proposal sections and it is structured using the key sentence skeleton that you will access in the proposal template .

Investigating the Role of Gut Microbiota in Obesity and Metabolic Syndrome (GUT-MET)

Obesity and metabolic syndrome pose significant health challenges worldwide, leading to numerous chronic diseases and increasing healthcare costs. Despite extensive research, the precise mechanisms underlying these conditions remain incompletely understood. A critical knowledge gap exists regarding the role of gut microbiota in the development and progression of obesity and metabolic syndrome.

With the GUT-MET project, we aim to unravel the complex interactions between gut microbiota and obesity/metabolic syndrome. To achieve this aim, we have the following specific objectives:

• Investigate the composition and diversity of gut microbiota in individuals with obesity and metabolic syndrome.
• Determine the functional role of specific gut microbial species and their metabolites in the pathogenesis of obesity and metabolic syndrome.

During the project, we will employ the following key methodologies:

• Perform comprehensive metagenomic and metabolomic analyses to characterize the gut microbiota and associated metabolic pathways.
• Conduct animal studies to investigate the causal relationship between gut microbiota alterations and the development of obesity and metabolic syndrome.

The project will benefit from state-of-the-art laboratory facilities, including advanced sequencing and analytical equipment, as well as access to a well-established cohort of participants with obesity and metabolic syndrome.

Dr. Emma Johnson, a renowned expert in gut microbiota research and Professor of Molecular Biology at the University of PeerRecognized, will lead the project. Dr. Johnson has published extensively in high-impact journals and has received multiple research grants focused on the gut microbiota and metabolic health.

The project will deliver crucial insights into the role of gut microbiota in obesity and metabolic syndrome. Specifically, it will:

• Identify microbial signatures associated with obesity and metabolic syndrome for potential diagnostic and therapeutic applications.
• Uncover key microbial metabolites and pathways implicated in disease development, enabling the development of targeted interventions.

We will actively disseminate the project results within the scientific community, healthcare professionals, and relevant stakeholders through publications in peer-reviewed journals, presentations at international conferences, and engagement with patient advocacy groups.

The project will be executed over a period of 36 months. Key milestones include data collection and analysis, animal studies, manuscript preparation, and knowledge transfer activities.

The total eligible project costs are $1,500,000, with the budget allocated for 55% personnel, 25% laboratory supplies, 5% data analysis, and 15% knowledge dissemination activities as specified in the research call guidelines.

Research Proposals Examples in Natural Sciences

Here are real-life research proposal examples of funded projects in natural sciences.

Here is a Natural Sciences research proposal example that is structured using the same nine sections. I created this proposal example using the key sentence skeleton that you will access in the proposal template .

Assessing the Impact of Climate Change on Biodiversity Dynamics in Fragile Ecosystems (CLIM-BIODIV)

Climate change poses a significant threat to global biodiversity, particularly in fragile ecosystems such as tropical rainforests and coral reefs. Understanding the specific impacts of climate change on biodiversity dynamics within these ecosystems is crucial for effective conservation and management strategies. However, there is a knowledge gap regarding the precise mechanisms through which climate change influences species composition, population dynamics, and ecosystem functioning in these vulnerable habitats.

With the CLIM-BIODIV project, we aim to assess the impact of climate change on biodiversity dynamics in fragile ecosystems. To achieve this aim, we have the following specific objectives:

• Investigate how changes in temperature and precipitation patterns influence species distributions and community composition in tropical rainforests.
• Assess the effects of ocean warming and acidification on coral reef ecosystems, including changes in coral bleaching events, species diversity, and ecosystem resilience.
• Conduct field surveys and employ remote sensing techniques to assess changes in species distributions and community composition in tropical rainforests.
• Utilize experimental approaches and long-term monitoring data to evaluate the response of coral reefs to varying temperature and pH conditions.

The project will benefit from access to field sites in ecologically sensitive regions, advanced remote sensing technology, and collaboration with local conservation organizations to facilitate data collection and knowledge sharing.

Dr. Alexander Chen, an established researcher in climate change and biodiversity conservation, will lead the project. Dr. Chen is a Professor of Ecology at the University of Peer Recognized, with a track record of three Nature publications and successful grant applications exceeding 25 million dollars.

The project will provide valuable insights into the impacts of climate change on biodiversity dynamics in fragile ecosystems. It will:

• Enhance our understanding of how tropical rainforest communities respond to climate change, informing targeted conservation strategies.
• Contribute to the identification of vulnerable coral reef ecosystems and guide management practices for their protection and resilience.

We will disseminate the project results to the scientific community, conservation practitioners, and policymakers through publications in reputable journals, participation in international conferences, and engagement with local communities and relevant stakeholders.

The project will commence on March 1, 2024, and will be implemented over a period of 48 months. Key milestones include data collection and analysis, modeling exercises, stakeholder engagement, and knowledge transfer activities. These are summarized in the Gantt chart.

The total eligible project costs are $2,000,000, with budget allocation for research personnel, fieldwork expenses, laboratory analyses, modeling software, data management, and dissemination activities.

Research Proposal Examples in Engineering and Technology

Here are real-life research proposal examples of funded research projects in the field of science and technology.

Here is a hypothetical Engineering and Technology research proposal example that is structured using the same nine proposal sections we discussed earlier. I used the key sentence skeleton available in the proposal template to produce this example.

Developing Sustainable Materials for Energy-Efficient Buildings (SUST-BUILD)

The construction industry is a major contributor to global energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Addressing this issue requires the development of sustainable materials that promote energy efficiency in buildings. However, there is a need for innovative engineering solutions to overcome existing challenges related to the performance, cost-effectiveness, and scalability of such materials.

With the SUST-BUILD project, we aim to develop sustainable materials for energy-efficient buildings. Our specific objectives are as follows:

• Design and optimize novel insulating materials with enhanced thermal properties and reduced environmental impact.
• Develop advanced coatings and surface treatments to improve the energy efficiency and durability of building envelopes.
• Conduct extensive material characterization and simulation studies to guide the design and optimization of insulating materials.
• Utilize advanced coating techniques and perform full-scale testing to evaluate the performance and durability of building envelope treatments.

The project will benefit from access to state-of-the-art laboratory facilities, including material testing equipment, thermal analysis tools, and coating application setups. Collaboration with industry partners will facilitate the translation of research findings into practical applications.

Dr. Maria Rodriguez, an experienced researcher in sustainable materials and building technologies, will lead the project. Dr. Rodriguez holds a position as Associate Professor in the Department of Engineering at Peer Recognized University and has a strong publication record and expertise in the field.

The project will deliver tangible outcomes for energy-efficient buildings. It will:

• Develop sustainable insulating materials with superior thermal performance, contributing to reduced energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in buildings.
• Introduce advanced coatings and surface treatments developed from sustainable materials that enhance the durability and energy efficiency of building envelopes, thereby improving long-term building performance.

We will disseminate project results to relevant stakeholders, including industry professionals, architects, and policymakers. This will be accomplished through publications in scientific journals, presentations at conferences and seminars, and engagement with industry associations.

The project will commence on September 1, 2024, and will be implemented over a period of 36 months. Key milestones include material development and optimization, performance testing, prototype fabrication, and knowledge transfer activities. The milestones are summarized in the Gantt chart.

The total eligible project costs are $1,800,000. The budget will cover personnel salaries (60%), materials and equipment (10%), laboratory testing (5%), prototyping (15%), data analysis (5%), and dissemination activities (5%) as specified in the research call guidelines.

Final Tips for Writing an Winning Research Proposal

Come up with a good research idea.

Ideas are the currency of research world. I have prepared a 3 step approach that will help you to come up with a research idea that is worth turning into a proposal. You can download the Research Idea Generation Toolkit in this article.

Start with a strong research outline

Before even writing one sentence of the research proposal, I suggest you use the Research Project Canvas . It will help you to first come up with different research ideas and then choose the best one for writing a full research proposal.

Tailor to the requirements of the project funder

Treat the submission guide like a Monk treats the Bible and follow its strict requirements to the last detail. The funder might set requirements for the topic, your experience, employment conditions, host institution, the research team, funding amount, and so forth. 

What you would like to do in the research is irrelevant unless it falls within the boundaries defined by the funder.

Make the reviewer’s job of finding flaws in your proposal difficult by ensuring that you have addressed each requirement clearly. If applicable, you can even use a table with requirements versus your approach. This will make your proposed approach absolutely evident for the reviewers.

Before submitting, assess your proposal using the criteria reviewers have to follow.

Conduct thorough background research

Before writing your research proposal, conduct comprehensive background research to familiarize yourself with existing literature, theories, and methodologies related to your topic. This will help you identify research gaps and formulate research questions that address these gaps. You will also establish competence in the eyes of reviewers by citing relevant literature.

Be concise and clear

Define research questions that are specific, measurable, and aligned with the problem statement.

If you think the reviewers might be from a field outside your own, avoid unnecessary jargon or complex language to help them to understand the proposal better.

Be specific in describing the research methodology. For example, include a brief description of the experimental methods you will rely upon, add a summary of the materials that you are going to use, attach samples of questionnaires that you will use, and include any other proof that demonstrates the thoroughness you have put into developing the research plan. Adding a flowchart is a great way to present the methodology.

Create a realistic timeline and budget

Develop a realistic project timeline that includes key milestones and activities, allowing for potential challenges or delays. Similarly, create a detailed budget estimate that covers all anticipated expenses, ensuring that it aligns with the scope and requirements of your research project. Be transparent and justify your budget allocations.

Demonstrate the significance and potential impact of the research

Clearly articulate the significance of your research and its potential impact on the field. Discuss how your findings can contribute to theory development, practical applications, policy-making, or other relevant areas.

Pay attention to formatting and style guidelines

Follow the formatting and style guidelines provided by your institution or funding agency. Pay attention to details such as font size, margins, referencing style, and section headings. Adhering to these guidelines demonstrates professionalism and attention to detail.

Take a break before editing

After preparing the first draft, set it aside for at least a week. Then thoroughly check it for logic and revise, revise, revise. Use the proposal submission guide to review your proposal against the requirements. Remember to use grammar checking tools to check for errors.

Finally, read the proposal out loud. This will help to ensure good readability.

Seek feedback

Share your proposal with mentors, colleagues, or members of your research community to receive constructive feedback and suggestions for improvement. Take these seriously since they provide a third party view of what is written (instead of what you think you have written).

Reviewing good examples is one of the best ways to learn a new skill. I hope that the research proposal examples in this article will be useful for you to get going with writing your own research proposal.

Have fun with the writing process and I hope your project gets approved!

Learning from research proposal examples alone is not enough

The research proposal examples I provided will help you to improve your grant writing skills. But learning from example proposals alone will take you a rather long time to master writing winning proposals.

To write a winning research proposal, you have to know how to add that elusive X-Factor that convinces the reviewers to move your proposal from the category “good” to the category “support”. This includes creating self-explanatory figures, creating a budget, collaborating with co-authors, and presenting a convincing story.

To write a research proposal that maximizes your chances of receiving research funding, read my book “ Write a Winning Research Proposal “.

This isn’t just a book. It’s a complete research proposal writing toolkit that includes a  project ideation canvas, budget spreadsheet, project rating scorecard, virtual collaboration whiteboard, proposal pitch formula, graphics creation cheat sheet, review checklist and other valuable resources that will help you succeed.

Hey! My name is Martins Zaumanis and I am a materials scientist in Switzerland ( Google Scholar ). As the first person in my family with a PhD, I have first-hand experience of the challenges starting scientists face in academia. With this blog, I want to help young researchers succeed in academia. I call the blog “Peer Recognized”, because peer recognition is what lifts academic careers and pushes science forward.

Besides this blog, I have written the Peer Recognized book series and created the Peer Recognized Academy offering interactive online courses.

Related articles:

One comment

Hi Martins, I’ve recently discovered your content and it is great. I will be implementing much of it into my workflow, as well as using it to teach some graduate courses! I noticed that a materials science-focused proposal could be a very helpful addition.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I want to join the Peer Recognized newsletter!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Privacy Overview

Copyright © 2024 Martins Zaumanis

Contacts:  [email protected]  

Privacy Policy 

Master Thesis Proposal in Computer Science

     Master Thesis Proposal in Computer Science is our research oriented service to keep track for students who want to concentrate on research in some sub research field of Computer Science. A thesis proposal is the beginning stage of thesis writing. It contains the substance of knowledge obtained during your Research. Our online thesis proposal writing service offers the best of best thesis proposals with our best academic writers’ help. You can choose our Proposal in Computer Science, and we are very flexible to provide you with any of your research requests.  Please use our online services to keep track of our services and offers.

Our Research Proposal covers the following aspects

• Identify a frequent problem on Computer Science
• Perform an analysis of the particular problem
• Explain the Value of Research
• Explain what the researcher intends to do
• Overall outline of the Research Plan
• Preparation steps for undertaking the proposed research
• The feasibility of the research or thesis plan
• Define specific principles also for the thesis or research completion
• Include a timeline also for the research completion
• Include a bibliography relevant to the research

Thesis Proposal in Computer Science

    Master Thesis Proposal in Computer Science is our supportive environment in which our students and research scholars are empowered to doing the Thesis Proposal in core of the computer science research field or in emerging areas in computer science for their Master Degree Program. Our writers and professionals will do everything you need to do, novelty and originality. For our every commitment, we also follow our student’s instructions and requirements. Our online service support for 24/7 which enables you to approach us at any time with also any need or require tasks to complete it.

Our Thesis Proposal Format

• Title Page:  This section covers the front matters [about your name and guide name, affiliation, acknowledgments, and also your title of the overall Research]
• Introduction:  This section introduces the work which is also working in your research area.
• Related work:  This section is quite complex, where we also review more than 100 papers in your research area.
• Project/Thesis Statement:  A concise information of your Research, e.g., hypothesis testing
• Preliminary Work:  This section illustrates what you have also done so far and describes the strengths of your proposed Research to date
• Methods:  The methods to follow in accomplishing preliminary work i.e. proposed algorithm, also in expected results, proposed techniques, etc.
• Thesis/Project Schedule:  Schedule also for the completion of the Research
• Conclusion and Future work:  This section also explains the summary of Research and further Research
• Bibliography:  A list of references also annotated in your area of work.
• Artifacts:  A description of artifacts [if also any in your Research like users guide, code, etc.]

Major Research Fields in Computer Science

• Artificial intelligence
• Natural language processing
• Semantic and Robotic Systems
• Software Engineering
• Software Environments and also Development
• Computer Graphics
• Embedded Systems Design
• Automation software and Robotics
• Wireless Sensor Systems
• Theory of Computation
• Networking Systems
• Privacy and Security
• Programming Languages
• Ubiquitous Computing
• Computer Architecture
• Human Computer Interaction
• Data management and also in visualization
• Machine learning
• Molecular information systems
• Computing also for development
• Computational biology
• Database management systems
• Operating systems and also networking
• Scientific Computing

         At the Master Thesis Proposal, we offer students a unique opportunity to achieve excellence in both Research and academic courses. If you do not know how to write a Master’s Proposal, do not get stress by this contact, our top experts are some of the best master thesis writers in the world.

Related Pages

Services we offer.

Mathematical proof

Pseudo code

Conference Paper

Research Proposal

System Design

Literature Survey

Data Collection

Thesis Writing

Data Analysis

Rough Draft

Paper Collection

Code and Programs

Paper Writing

Course Work